Here we go again! (AotC spoilers)
MindB_ender
celibacy... which don't seem to bad, many religious orders have such a
thing, but it does bring up something which TPM was already known for:
more direct contradictions with the Expanded Universe. (After such
greats as only 2 Sith, no Dark Jedi except for Mace Windu perhaps, the
limitations in sabre colours etc...)
Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader because he loved... destroying the
Jedi order to protect that love and falling to hate in the process. Now
this does place a few questions about Corran Horn's real father... who'd
be in the same situation and it places a lot more questionmarks to
something like the realtionship... even marriage... between two Jedi
like Mara and Luke, the marriaged Jedi Leia, and all the other soapy
love stories in the novels.
You'd be able to say that Luke founded the New Jedi Order on a
completely different set of rules, not being informed on the old rules.
But wouldn't it make sense that Yoda or Kenobi did tell him about the
(apparent) vows of celibacy, povery and obedience? Especially if that
vow was at the base of the order and especially if breaking that vow by
a single Jedi (Anakin) was responsible for the destruction of the entire
order? And even if that never happened - it wouldn't save Horn's real
dad or a variety of other stories.
I'm getting the idea that by the time all 3 prequel movies have been
made we can be throwing more then half the EU into the bin, safe perhaps
the X-Wing novels if course - as they rarely touched on such subjects
(hence the corran reference)... will this create a cut with all the "old
EU" after Ep3 is released so they can start all over again with a "New
EU" which doesn't conflict as much? Or will there be new novels written
that explain the contradictions after which we can go on on the old
footing?
I'm not sure which I'll prefer... I really enjoy many of the stories of
the EU - even if they don't fit the so called "canon". I just tend to
seperate them from all other star wars stories and just see them as
possibilities within an huge universe. Perhaps all this could've been
avoided if Lucasfilm had given better directions/restrictions or if the
writers had kept themselves more to them. Most conflicts do appear where
the EU went past such restrictions in the first place. (like with the
references to the old republic, clone wars etc)... I doubt they'll be
revising all the stories to fit anyway:|
Wayne Farmer
In article <3BF54878...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL>, MindB_ender <A.C.W.T.Z
weg...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL> writes
>The latest AotC trailer brought up the idea that Jedi have an oath of
>celibacy... which don't seem to bad, many religious orders have such a
>thing, but it does bring up something which TPM was already known for:
>more direct contradictions with the Expanded Universe. (After such
>greats as only 2 Sith, no Dark Jedi except for Mace Windu perhaps, the
>limitations in sabre colours etc...)
Just because there are no Dark Jedi in the films, doesn't mean there
aren't any. As to the sith thing I'm sure it explains in the novel of
the movie that there were lots in the past but then one of them decided
that there should only ever be 2. Again just cos its not in the movie -
its not important enough to be.
>
>Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader because he loved... destroying the
>Jedi order to protect that love and falling to hate in the process.
The way i take things from the trailer his turn to the darkside starts
with the death of his mother, which he was unable to prevent and that he
blames Obi-Wan for holding him back and so meaning he wasn't powerful
enough to save her, i don't think his love for Padme is the cause of his
turning, its just a small problem.
> Now
>this does place a few questions about Corran Horn's real father... who'd
>be in the same situation and it places a lot more questionmarks to
>something like the realtionship... even marriage... between two Jedi
>like Mara and Luke, the marriaged Jedi Leia, and all the other soapy
>love stories in the novels.
I don't think it affects them in any way whatsoever.
>
>You'd be able to say that Luke founded the New Jedi Order on a
>completely different set of rules, not being informed on the old rules.
>But wouldn't it make sense that Yoda or Kenobi did tell him about the
>(apparent) vows of celibacy, povery and obedience?
Why would they? They only told him enough to defeat Vader - as he wasn't
about to fall in love with Vader and decide to marry him they had no
need to tell him about celibacy and the like.
> Especially if that
>vow was at the base of the order and especially if breaking that vow by
>a single Jedi (Anakin) was responsible for the destruction of the entire
>order?
As I said above, I don't think its this that causes his turning - it may
contribute a bit, but saying that any jedi who falls in love is gonna
turn to the darkside is just plain daft - its like the argument that
watching violent films turns everyone into killers - it has to be a
combination of a lot of other things too.
> And even if that never happened - it wouldn't save Horn's real
>dad or a variety of other stories.
>
>I'm getting the idea that by the time all 3 prequel movies have been
>made we can be throwing more then half the EU into the bin, safe perhaps
>the X-Wing novels if course - as they rarely touched on such subjects
>(hence the corran reference)... will this create a cut with all the "old
>EU" after Ep3 is released so they can start all over again with a "New
>EU" which doesn't conflict as much? Or will there be new novels written
>that explain the contradictions after which we can go on on the old
>footing?
>
>I'm not sure which I'll prefer... I really enjoy many of the stories of
>the EU - even if they don't fit the so called "canon". I just tend to
>seperate them from all other star wars stories and just see them as
>possibilities within an huge universe. Perhaps all this could've been
>avoided if Lucasfilm had given better directions/restrictions or if the
>writers had kept themselves more to them. Most conflicts do appear where
>the EU went past such restrictions in the first place. (like with the
>references to the old republic, clone wars etc)... I doubt they'll be
>revising all the stories to fit anyway:|
I think the only really glaring contradiction is the references to Owen
as Obi-Wan's brother.
__ __ __ __ ___ __ __ _ __ __
|__)| || _ | ||_ (__ | || ||__|| \|__)| ||\ |
_____| \|__||__||__||________)|_\||__|| ||_ /| \|__|| \|______
| |
| M-3PO, Quartermaster |
| Website: http://www.yavin-4.demon.co.uk |
| E-mail: Wedge_A...@yavin-4.demon.co.uk |
| ICQ: 49663304 |
|___________________ ___ __ __ _ __ ___________________|
| |__)|__|| \ | |\ || _
| | \| ||_ / | | \||__|
MindB_ender
it's quite specific in these things. Jedi aren't allowed to love and it
then points out that the anger in Anakin develops because he does love
Padme.
Wayne Farmer wrote:
>
> > The way i take things from the trailer his turn to the darkside starts
> with the death of his mother, which he was unable to prevent and that he
> blames Obi-Wan for holding him back and so meaning he wasn't powerful
> enough to save her, i don't think his love for Padme is the cause of his
> turning, its just a small problem.
> As I said above, I don't think its this that causes his turning - it may
Kelly Grosskreutz
news:3BF5663B...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL...
> sorry.. you obviously haven't seen the "forbidden love" trailer yet -
> it's quite specific in these things. Jedi aren't allowed to love and it
> then points out that the anger in Anakin develops because he does love
> Padme.
>
Especially when it comes to Yoda telling Luke about vows of celibacy. Give
me a break. He is supposed to pass on what he has learned. Yeah, ok, to
Leia. But after he and her die, then what? Forgetting the EU entirely, are
they supposed to just let the Order die out because they're not allowed to
procreate?
I believe that there are several things that contribute to Anakin's turning
to the Dark Side.
1. The death of his mother (are we sure this happens in Ep II?)
2. Obi-wan "holding him back" could mean several things. It could mean
holding him back from saving his mother, from attaining more power quickly,
from doing something else we don't know about yet, from his love to Padme,
should I go on? In other words, we don't know, and we aren't expected to
know from one line in a trailer for a movie that is going to be a lot longer
than two minutes.
3. Anakin has a lust for power, if we can go with his line of wanting to be
the most powerful Jedi ever. This could drive him to the Dark Side all on
its own, especially with Palpatine/Sidious/whatever his name is right now
influencing him.
In other words, there are way too many factors that can be accurately judged
from a two minute trailer. Plus, let's not forget that the way half of that
was presented could have been to misdirect people from what's really going
on until they actually see the movie. Keep in mind Lucas's
almost-obssession with secrecy.
--
Kelly Grosskreutz
Keeper of things Halcyon and Corran lore
http://www.idcnet.com/~ivanova/horn.htm
PS. Lissy is at my house right now, reading over my shoulder, and she also
agrees with this. So there's three people, two verified as having seen the
trailer, that believe this.
:) Lissy
Hobbie's Girl, Resident WEBber
Wayne Farmer
over again before I wrote what I wrote. I'm glad to see I'm not on my
own on this love thing.
As much as the death of Anakin's mother happening in Ep.II then I'm
pretty sure it occurs, although like Kelly says we can't be 100% sure on
anything just from the trailers (note I'm reassembling scenes in the
order that I obviously think they go):-
In Mystery we have someone say "They came at dawn", My feeling is this
is Cliegg Lars talking about the sand people taking Anakin's mother
away. Then in Forbidden Love we have him anxiously riding a swoop as
fast as he can across the desert which i take to be him going to try to
find her. We have the Sandcrawler scene with a Jawa pointing in a
certain direction. After that at the very end of Forbidden we have a
very angry Anakin decapitating a Sand Person. Anakin returns to a Leia
earmuff wearing Padme looking pained (Forbidden), and then she gives him
a consoling hug outside the Lars Homestead (Breathing).
In article <uumJ7.28$nT.1558@client>, Kelly Grosskreutz
<iva...@idcnet.com> writes
Knight
> The latest AotC trailer brought up the idea that Jedi have an oath of
> celibacy... which don't seem to bad, many religious orders have such a
> thing, but it does bring up something which TPM was already known for:
> more direct contradictions with the Expanded Universe. (After such
> greats as only 2 Sith, no Dark Jedi except for Mace Windu perhaps, the
> limitations in sabre colours etc...)
Not a new idea. Luke stated that he wasn't even sure if the Jedi were
allowed to marry before his impending nuptials with Mara Jade.
The whole Sith thing has been pretty effectively ret-conned as well. The
Dark Horse series "Jedi vs. Sith" shows how the whole "Always two" rule came
about approximately 2000 years before TPM. How the Sith race as ruled by a
bunch of Dark Jedi evolved into the Sith Order with only two members has
also been tracked.
Dark Jedi are rare. For one, some "contractors" are sent out to take down
Dark Jedi before they become a problem. Its also stated in AotC how very few
Jedi actually left the Old Order. Finally, the big upheaval of Dark Jedi
occurred *after* the Clone Wars (if memory serves). Probably a similar
situation to what we are seeing potentially in the Yuuzhan Vong War. But
again, thats based on EU info, nothing "official".
> Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader because he loved... destroying the
> Jedi order to protect that love and falling to hate in the process. Now
> this does place a few questions about Corran Horn's real father... who'd
> be in the same situation and it places a lot more questionmarks to
> something like the realtionship... even marriage... between two Jedi
> like Mara and Luke, the marriaged Jedi Leia, and all the other soapy
> love stories in the novels.
Its been stated often that Corellian Jedi ran things very differently to
those Jedi back at the ranch...temple...whatever :) Corellian Jedi rarely
left the Corellian Sector, so chances are they did things differently. There
are a few other options of course. Neeja Halcyon was probably a much more
well adjusted and mature person than Anakin Skywalker. Perhaps since Anakin
had so many emotional issues from his slavery and early separation from his
mother, Obi-Wan felt that a relationship with Padme was a bad idea, and was
throwing the whole "Dedicated to the Jedi" line as a hook to drag Anakin
away from her. We won't know until May 2002.
> You'd be able to say that Luke founded the New Jedi Order on a
> completely different set of rules, not being informed on the old rules.
> But wouldn't it make sense that Yoda or Kenobi did tell him about the
> (apparent) vows of celibacy, povery and obedience? Especially if that
> vow was at the base of the order and especially if breaking that vow by
> a single Jedi (Anakin) was responsible for the destruction of the entire
> order? And even if that never happened - it wouldn't save Horn's real
> dad or a variety of other stories.
Yoda and Kenobi weren't interested in teaching Luke the finer points of
running a Mystical Warrior Order (tm) with the job he had to do. Luke was a
weapon to take down the Emperor and his apprentice and to restore the Galaxy
to freedom, and they used him as such. But not just celibacy was thrown out
the window: at age 9 Anakin was deemed "too old". Luke was 21-23 when he
began his training, and many of the other Jedi Luke subsequently trained to
Knighthood were considerably older. A lot of the rules had to be thrown out
the window when Luke re-established the Order, simply because for the
Republic to survive, it needed Jedi. There is enough evidence to suggest
that Luke's throwing out of some of these rules and speeding up the process
was a big mistake (The amount of dead students, a resurgence in Dark Jedi,
Kevin J. Anderson) but love was not the result of the Emperor's Purges. I
would pin it more on a rash promised made by a distraught young man to his
dying master.
> I'm getting the idea that by the time all 3 prequel movies have been
> made we can be throwing more then half the EU into the bin, safe perhaps
> the X-Wing novels if course - as they rarely touched on such subjects
> (hence the corran reference)... will this create a cut with all the "old
> EU" after Ep3 is released so they can start all over again with a "New
> EU" which doesn't conflict as much? Or will there be new novels written
> that explain the contradictions after which we can go on on the old
> footing?
We used to believe that a Journeyman Protector from Concorde Dawn named
Jaster Mareel was exiled from his homeworld and went on to become the
Galaxy's most feared bounty hunter, but thats been thrown out the window and
a cover story put in place. Basically, we'll start doing what the Highlander
fans have been doing for years: if you don't like it or it don't make sense,
ignore it!
> I'm not sure which I'll prefer... I really enjoy many of the stories of
> the EU - even if they don't fit the so called "canon". I just tend to
> seperate them from all other star wars stories and just see them as
> possibilities within an huge universe. Perhaps all this could've been
> avoided if Lucasfilm had given better directions/restrictions or if the
> writers had kept themselves more to them. Most conflicts do appear where
> the EU went past such restrictions in the first place. (like with the
> references to the old republic, clone wars etc)... I doubt they'll be
> revising all the stories to fit anyway:|
Timothy Zahn made some mistakes in his original trilogy as to the dating of
the Clone Wars; he patched it up in his final duology. Retro-active
continuity is a game many fans play, and Star Wars fans seem to be playing
it rather well so far. Mistakes happen, but so far they've all been caught
and repaired or completely thrown out. But in any case, there's really only
one rule to follow: What you see on the big screen is official (note that
the Holiday Special was not on the big screen), everything else isn't, it
just expands on the original material.
Regards,
Brandon
Kni...@uq.net.au
MindB_ender
>
> "MindB_ender" <A.C.W.T...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL> wrote in message
> news:3BF5663B...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL...
> > sorry.. you obviously haven't seen the "forbidden love" trailer yet -
> > it's quite specific in these things. Jedi aren't allowed to love and it
> > then points out that the anger in Anakin develops because he does love
> > Padme.
> >
> I did see the Forbidden Love trailer, and I agree almost 100% with Wayne.
> Especially when it comes to Yoda telling Luke about vows of celibacy. Give
> me a break. He is supposed to pass on what he has learned. Yeah, ok, to
> Leia. But after he and her die, then what? Forgetting the EU entirely, are
> they supposed to just let the Order die out because they're not allowed to
> procreate?
Well apparently that is what the Jedi Order has always been doing... We
know that force-powers are genetical, family-connected and so on. This
is in contradiction as it would imply the Jedi order is effectively
killing off all the force-powers of the universe: the best get sucked in
and never produce another one of that level of Jedi. It would explain
how the Sith eventually could easily beat the far more numerous Jedi:
the Jedi had degraded by their own fault. Getting the best breeding
material and then putting it on a dead-end sidetrack does that to you.
> I believe that there are several things that contribute to Anakin's turning
> to the Dark Side.
> 1. The death of his mother (are we sure this happens in Ep II?)
No we are not... let's not forget that the way half of that was
presented could have been to misdirect people from what's really going
on until they actually see the movie after all;)
I personally think it has a high probability but it's also way too
obvious. Also it would imply that Ben's actions against Maul were enough
to push Kenobi over the edge.
> 2. Obi-wan "holding him back" could mean several things. It could mean
> holding him back from saving his mother, from attaining more power quickly,
> from doing something else we don't know about yet, from his love to Padme,
> should I go on? In other words, we don't know, and we aren't expected to
> know from one line in a trailer for a movie that is going to be a lot longer
> than two minutes.
So this goes for about everything I guess... but actually I'm not on the
"holding him back" line - which is also why I didn't mention it yet. I'm
about the whole theme of that trailer AND of the cinema promotional
posters and banners. Everything points towards the fact that Jedi aren't
allowed to love, marriage or have relationships (and yes, that might
include family ones like with his mother.). This theme is laid so
thickly on the whole promotional aspect of the movie that it becomes
very hard to deny.
> 3. Anakin has a lust for power, if we can go with his line of wanting to be
> the most powerful Jedi ever. This could drive him to the Dark Side all on
> its own, especially with Palpatine/Sidious/whatever his name is right now
> influencing him.
I agree that there will be more then 1 factor in pushing Anakin to the
dark side - which is also again why that isn't really my main point -
what is, is what is the factor that started off the other factors?
People have always been going on about the fear and the anger and the
lust for power in Anankin - but I see a kid in TPM with a strong love
for his mother, and already a love for Padme... and this continues in
AotC obviously. If he's so full of love and gets hampered in that there
comes frustration - which leads to the other problems instead of the
other way around - IMHO
> In other words, there are way too many factors that can be accurately judged
> from a two minute trailer. Plus, let's not forget that the way half of that
> was presented could have been to misdirect people from what's really going
> on until they actually see the movie. Keep in mind Lucas's
> almost-obssession with secrecy.
All agreed...
But this all took away from what my post was actually about, which was
not so much about anakin's fall to the darkside (which is just the theme
of the whole new trilogy and thus always a lot more complex), my post is
that Jedi aren't allowed to love - and the EU is filled with such
events, which plainly contradicts. You might say that the trailer is too
short to base such comments on - but some of the things inside the
trailer are too explicit to be denied so lightly.
Yes the New Order is different - but there are reasons why the old order
came up with it's rules: and the events with Anakin prove those reasons
even more. The emotions coming with the territory are just too
conflicting to take place inside a Jedi without the effects they had on
Anakin. Even if Yoda didn't let Luke vow upon the celibacy, poverty and
obedience I'm sure Luke was informed of them as they are the basis of an
order... I know most monestaries and orders on earth have such vows and
I never even got close to them. The data didn't need to come from Yoda
or Ben even - it sounds like something everybody could've known.
MindB_ender
>
> "MindB_ender" <A.C.W.T...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL> wrote in message
> news:3BF54878...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL...
> > The latest AotC trailer brought up the idea that Jedi have an oath of
> > celibacy... which don't seem to bad, many religious orders have such a
> > thing, but it does bring up something which TPM was already known for:
> > more direct contradictions with the Expanded Universe. (After such
> > greats as only 2 Sith, no Dark Jedi except for Mace Windu perhaps, the
> > limitations in sabre colours etc...)
>
> Not a new idea. Luke stated that he wasn't even sure if the Jedi were
> allowed to marry before his impending nuptials with Mara Jade.
I'm aware off it not being a new idea, in fact we all could've known
from the old trilogy. It's not explicitly said - but it _is_ implied.
Just like it is implied that there are only white human males in the
Imperial Forces to make it look even more evil - as also racist, sexists
and speciesist.
> The whole Sith thing has been pretty effectively ret-conned as well. The
> Dark Horse series "Jedi vs. Sith" shows how the whole "Always two" rule came
> about approximately 2000 years before TPM. How the Sith race as ruled by a
> bunch of Dark Jedi evolved into the Sith Order with only two members has
> also been tracked.
I do not fully agree with this, mostly because I do not recognize the
"track" or the whole idea of Dark Jedi (outside for example Mace) or a
species called Sith, however deeply this was embedded in EU lore. There
never was a "Dark Jedi" in any of the movies, in 1977 Vader was already
called "Dark Lord of the Sith" in much of the material. Dark Jedi are a
complete novel/comic invention because the writers of such never
understood that Vader and Palpatine were Sith... needing a name w/o
doing too much research to call them they made up "Dark Jedi".
The obvious EU-defence of "if you don't see it in the movies don't mean
it don't exist" is about the worst founded dogma in the history of
fandom. According to that reasoning we also have Pink Jedi, Light Sith,
Alien Imperials, Monsterously Smelly Blubber Beasts from Kwelzebob,
Space Bound Mutant Sheep with lasers coming from their 654 horns, purple
light-weight Hutts, 3 meter tall Jawa's, hairless ewoks, etc etc. All of
which never appeared in the movies of course.
> Dark Jedi are rare. For one, some "contractors" are sent out to take down
> Dark Jedi before they become a problem. Its also stated in AotC how very few
> Jedi actually left the Old Order. Finally, the big upheaval of Dark Jedi
> occurred *after* the Clone Wars (if memory serves). Probably a similar
> situation to what we are seeing potentially in the Yuuzhan Vong War. But
> again, thats based on EU info, nothing "official".
Ok, let me put it like this: If there were _any_ Dark Jedi roving
around, why would the Jedi council not bring up that suggestion when QG
suggested he just met a Sith - which should've been extinct for
millenia? Instead of bringing up this far more obvious choice - if there
were any dark Jedi that is - they grudgingly agree that it must be
Sith.... as there is no other choice. Dark or Rogue Jedi would be other,
far more obvious, choices - the fact that they didn't even contemplate
them makes it pretty sure there is no such thing. (for me that is).
If there were any Yoda would've gone "ohh, that's just one of those dark
Jedi, pay it no mind."
*Mace looks up* "Who me?"
> > Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader because he loved... destroying the
> > Jedi order to protect that love and falling to hate in the process. Now
> > this does place a few questions about Corran Horn's real father... who'd
> > be in the same situation and it places a lot more questionmarks to
> > something like the realtionship... even marriage... between two Jedi
> > like Mara and Luke, the marriaged Jedi Leia, and all the other soapy
> > love stories in the novels.
>
> Its been stated often that Corellian Jedi ran things very differently to
> those Jedi back at the ranch...temple...whatever :)
Ahh... and where was this stated? Actually - where do we see a Corellian
Jedi? Actually - if all Jedi are recuited into the order as sibblings
after which all ties to their original lives are cut - how do Corellian
Jedi even know they are Corellian Jedi?
> Corellian Jedi rarely
> left the Corellian Sector, so chances are they did things differently.
Well this I'd ave to counter with the fact that the Jedi temple - which
they entered as infants after which they received decades of training -
wasn't placed on Corellia or even in the Corellian Sector... so it would
be more obvious that Corellian Jedi rarely _enter_ the Corellian sector,
instead of vice versa. It could very well be that for example Kenobi or
Qui-Gon are corellians but even they themselves would probably not know
- or care. They are Jedi now, the galaxy is their playground.
> There
> are a few other options of course. Neeja Halcyon was probably a much more
> well adjusted and mature person than Anakin Skywalker. Perhaps since Anakin
> had so many emotional issues from his slavery and early separation from his
> mother, Obi-Wan felt that a relationship with Padme was a bad idea, and was
> throwing the whole "Dedicated to the Jedi" line as a hook to drag Anakin
> away from her. We won't know until May 2002.
Well this is far better argumentation - yes Neeja was older, probably
more realxed and all of that... but you'd say that a Jedi like Yoda
would certainly surpass that again - and even he stayed within the
celibat, just like Qui-Gon or Kenobi - even though you'd say that both
of them would definitely attrackt their share of female attention. (Yoda
probably too, but since I'm not of his species I can't comment on it.)
But then again... not only Kenobi says this - Padme does so as well, and
she has all the reasons not to remind him of that. She even quotes from
common knowledge about Jedi not being allowed to love. Yes we will not
know till may 2002 - but for someone who at one moment claims that "if
its not in the movies don't mean it isn't so" you step very lightly over
things that _are_ in the movies.
> > You'd be able to say that Luke founded the New Jedi Order on a
> > completely different set of rules, not being informed on the old rules.
> > But wouldn't it make sense that Yoda or Kenobi did tell him about the
> > (apparent) vows of celibacy, povery and obedience? Especially if that
> > vow was at the base of the order and especially if breaking that vow by
> > a single Jedi (Anakin) was responsible for the destruction of the entire
> > order? And even if that never happened - it wouldn't save Horn's real
> > dad or a variety of other stories.
>
> Yoda and Kenobi weren't interested in teaching Luke the finer points of
> running a Mystical Warrior Order (tm) with the job he had to do. Luke was a
> weapon to take down the Emperor and his apprentice and to restore the Galaxy
> to freedom, and they used him as such. But not just celibacy was thrown out
> the window: at age 9 Anakin was deemed "too old". Luke was 21-23 when he
> began his training, and many of the other Jedi Luke subsequently trained to
> Knighthood were considerably older. A lot of the rules had to be thrown out
> the window when Luke re-established the Order, simply because for the
> Republic to survive, it needed Jedi. There is enough evidence to suggest
> that Luke's throwing out of some of these rules and speeding up the process
> was a big mistake (The amount of dead students, a resurgence in Dark Jedi,
> Kevin J. Anderson) but love was not the result of the Emperor's Purges. I
> would pin it more on a rash promised made by a distraught young man to his
> dying master.
yes all true... which for me would indicate all the more that Luke isn't
actually a Jedi - at least not in the sense of the times before his
birth. And no, the purges were not based upon anakin's too much love -
it was based on the Sith hate for Jedi. I'm just pretty much convinced
that Anakin's swing to that side of the Sith was mostly based upon his
love... or his inability to have that love being a Jedi. Not being
allowed love he stepped over to the hate (a very closely related emotion
in many ways) of the Sith.
Luke was in many ways a joke of a Jedi, someone trained for a day or 2
to make sure he'll stand up long enough against Vader for the Anakin
inside Vader to react, with his love. For such a "Jedi" to even attempt
to create an order is in fact starting all over again. He just got the
basics, his new order will have to go through millenia again before they
reach the level of the old Jedi... and in the process they might learn
that celibacy is definitely a requirement... if the "movie Luke" didn't
just know that already, where the "Novel Luke" just didn't - because
that would exclude all kinds of nice plot twists like him falling in
love with Mara (who very conveniently also doesn't need to comply with
the rule "forever will it dominate your destiny" even though she is not
Luke or Anakin who are special because they _can_ go from dark to light
and the rest can't).
> > I'm getting the idea that by the time all 3 prequel movies have been
> > made we can be throwing more then half the EU into the bin, safe perhaps
> > the X-Wing novels if course - as they rarely touched on such subjects
> > (hence the corran reference)... will this create a cut with all the "old
> > EU" after Ep3 is released so they can start all over again with a "New
> > EU" which doesn't conflict as much? Or will there be new novels written
> > that explain the contradictions after which we can go on on the old
> > footing?
>
> We used to believe that a Journeyman Protector from Concorde Dawn named
> Jaster Mareel was exiled from his homeworld and went on to become the
> Galaxy's most feared bounty hunter, but thats been thrown out the window and
> a cover story put in place. Basically, we'll start doing what the Highlander
> fans have been doing for years: if you don't like it or it don't make sense,
> ignore it!
Right! There is just one difference: we don't have a Highlander 2
everybody just wants to forget about. We will have 6 movies which are
_definitely_ star wars, no questions asked. For example the Fett story
will have to be ignored... but there are many more of these things, like
I tried to point out above.... but there is a breakingpoint: the EU is
in many ways so interwoven and on its own that after EP3 is ready it
will have no other connection with the movies (which are undeniably
"Star Wars") other then some names that are the same. If we have a Fett
story we have to ignore, but this story is part of the base of another
story... doesn't this mean we have to ignore that story too? And will
this not eventually take down the whole house of cards?
This is what I meant with "here we go again" as TPM had this effect in
many ways already... you must've noticed that before TPM people thought
the novels and comics had all wisdom while afterwards this wisdom seems
to be laughable and at least far more debatable.
Much of the dislike of "real fans" for TPM was also based upon the fact
that it was like this, that their beliefs - based on the EU - weren't
reinforced but even just plainly denied. Some people are still hoping
for a glimpse of Thrawn or the Outbound Flight Project or even Jorus,
Nejaa or anyone like that - and I'm pretty sure these hopes will not be
really fulfilled. (of course if these people see even a slightly blue
human somewhere in background of the movies they'll claim it to be
Thrawn)
> > I'm not sure which I'll prefer... I really enjoy many of the stories of
> > the EU - even if they don't fit the so called "canon". I just tend to
> > seperate them from all other star wars stories and just see them as
> > possibilities within an huge universe. Perhaps all this could've been
> > avoided if Lucasfilm had given better directions/restrictions or if the
> > writers had kept themselves more to them. Most conflicts do appear where
> > the EU went past such restrictions in the first place. (like with the
> > references to the old republic, clone wars etc)... I doubt they'll be
> > revising all the stories to fit anyway:|
>
> Timothy Zahn made some mistakes in his original trilogy as to the dating of
> the Clone Wars; he patched it up in his final duology. Retro-active
> continuity is a game many fans play, and Star Wars fans seem to be playing
> it rather well so far. Mistakes happen, but so far they've all been caught
> and repaired or completely thrown out. But in any case, there's really only
> one rule to follow: What you see on the big screen is official (note that
> the Holiday Special was not on the big screen), everything else isn't, it
> just expands on the original material.
Yes, I'm very much aware of that. I'm just very much intrested in where
the breaking-point is... and how much more of the EU will just be
plainly thrown out of the window by the time we have 3 more movies. Some
of the repairing that has been done after TPM was already stretching the
limits (like the explanations on why Dark Jedi could still exist). I
think people are taking continuiety too far. A good and fun story set in
the starwars universe denied from all sides is still a good and fun
story. Trying to make 1 big thing out of many such stories might be nice
brain exercize but it doesn't mean it makes more sense that way - often
only less - and it regulary denies the quality of many of these stories
in their own right.
I wonder if Lucas will start prohibitting the (re)priniting of
particulary conflicting stories after EP3 to keep making sense and a
sense of continuety for newer fans - who didn't jump in in the "dry
days" when we only had the (misunderstood) old trilogy and the EU, but
only at the new trilogy. These fans would be very confused reading many
of the things with in the EU which would just go straight against all
they've seen in the movies... in which you also have to take in account
that they won't read all of the EU in 1 go so they can make a fumbled
sense of it again - interested by the new movies they'll pick up one
novel and then ask themselves if this is even the same universe it's
fitted in.
Ysanne
MindB_ender wrote:
> Well apparently that is what the Jedi Order has always been doing... We
> know that force-powers are genetical, family-connected and so on. This
> is in contradiction as it would imply the Jedi order is effectively
> killing off all the force-powers of the universe: the best get sucked in
> and never produce another one of that level of Jedi. It would explain
> how the Sith eventually could easily beat the far more numerous Jedi:
> the Jedi had degraded by their own fault. Getting the best breeding
> material and then putting it on a dead-end sidetrack does that to you.
But considering that the Jedi Order was alive and well for many
generations, plus that Jedi aren't necessarily stupid enough to enforce
their own extinction, they just won't make such a celibacy rule. It is
contraproductive, and agains everything in human (and probably lots of
other species') nature, plus love is an emotion that helps the light
side. So why ban it?
> So this goes for about everything I guess... but actually I'm not on the
> "holding him back" line - which is also why I didn't mention it yet. I'm
> about the whole theme of that trailer AND of the cinema promotional
> posters and banners. Everything points towards the fact that Jedi aren't
> allowed to love, marriage or have relationships (and yes, that might
> include family ones like with his mother.). This theme is laid so
> thickly on the whole promotional aspect of the movie that it becomes
> very hard to deny.
What points at it? Why do you think that Anakin's Jedi-ness is the
problem and not e.g. that Queens of Naboo aren't allowed to have a
relationship (they seem to get elected, so anything that could lead to a
Queen trying to pass on her power by inheritance should be avoided), or
something else like in the myriad of stories that aren't about Jedi and
still include a man and a woman who are not allowed a relationship.
> People have always been going on about the fear and the anger and the
> lust for power in Anankin - but I see a kid in TPM with a strong love
> for his mother, and already a love for Padme... and this continues in
> AotC obviously. If he's so full of love and gets hampered in that there
> comes frustration - which leads to the other problems instead of the
> other way around - IMHO
So how idiotic would it be of the Jedi if they forbade _the_ emotion
that makes people do good things? Love in itself doesn't produce hate
and anger, but quite the opposite. Not being allowed to love, now _that_
does. And as love is a very fundamental thing, a no-love-rule in the
order would mean that a great part of the Jedi would have to struggle
with dark feelings -- just because the Jedi Order prohibits the light
emotions. Very contraproductive. Not Jedi-like. A pointless, destructive
chore.
I do think Jedi in general are allowed to love, and some other factor is
in the way of Padme's and Anakin's love.
Ysane
Knight
> > Not a new idea. Luke stated that he wasn't even sure if the Jedi were
> > allowed to marry before his impending nuptials with Mara Jade.
>
> I'm aware off it not being a new idea, in fact we all could've known
> from the old trilogy. It's not explicitly said - but it _is_ implied.
> Just like it is implied that there are only white human males in the
> Imperial Forces to make it look even more evil - as also racist, sexists
> and speciesist.
I disagree with it being implied. The only examples of Jedi we see in the
Classic Trilogy are two old guys who are rather relcutant to recount the
stories of their glory days.
I also put down the whole white supremesist Empire down to casting choices.
You don't see much ethnic difference in the Rebel Alliance until TESB or
ROTJ either.
> > The whole Sith thing has been pretty effectively ret-conned as well. The
> > Dark Horse series "Jedi vs. Sith" shows how the whole "Always two" rule
came
> > about approximately 2000 years before TPM. How the Sith race as ruled by
a
> > bunch of Dark Jedi evolved into the Sith Order with only two members has
> > also been tracked.
>
> I do not fully agree with this, mostly because I do not recognize the
> "track" or the whole idea of Dark Jedi (outside for example Mace) or a
> species called Sith, however deeply this was embedded in EU lore.
Why do you keeping mentioning Mace in connction with Dark Jedi? Am I missng
something here?
> The obvious EU-defence of "if you don't see it in the movies don't mean
> it don't exist" is about the worst founded dogma in the history of
> fandom. According to that reasoning we also have Pink Jedi, Light Sith,
> Alien Imperials, Monsterously Smelly Blubber Beasts from Kwelzebob,
> Space Bound Mutant Sheep with lasers coming from their 654 horns, purple
> light-weight Hutts, 3 meter tall Jawa's, hairless ewoks, etc etc. All of
> which never appeared in the movies of course.
I think that EU defence is so people don't rant so much. Basically, we have
to accept what is in the movies as cannon, however fans grate over Greedo
shooting first (another character who's very confusing thanks to the EU).
Basically, take what you like from the EU and accept it, or ignore what
doesn't work. Kevin J. Anderson took that approach for the Essential
Chronology, managing to iron out quite a few bugs in Eu continuity matching
with the films. Doesn't mean I forgive him for Jedi High or Qui Xux though
:)
> Ok, let me put it like this: If there were _any_ Dark Jedi roving
> around, why would the Jedi council not bring up that suggestion when QG
> suggested he just met a Sith - which should've been extinct for
> millenia? Instead of bringing up this far more obvious choice - if there
> were any dark Jedi that is - they grudgingly agree that it must be
> Sith.... as there is no other choice. Dark or Rogue Jedi would be other,
> far more obvious, choices - the fact that they didn't even contemplate
> them makes it pretty sure there is no such thing. (for me that is).
I highly doubt Qui-Gon would be unable to recognise a Dark Jedi if he
encountered one (considering his first apprentice went to the Dark Side). He
went to the Jedi Council simply because he didn't know what Maul was when he
encountered him on Tatooine. He described his opponent as "well trained in
the Jedi Arts", but he never implied that he may have actually been a fallen
Jedi.
Sith have been set up as the idealogical opposite of the Jedi. A Dark Jedi
is a gray area, someone with all the training and some of the discipline of
a Jedi Knight, but who has fallen into anger and dispair.
> If there were any Yoda would've gone "ohh, that's just one of those dark
> Jedi, pay it no mind."
> *Mace looks up* "Who me?"
Once again, huh?
> > Its been stated often that Corellian Jedi ran things very differently to
> > those Jedi back at the ranch...temple...whatever :)
>
> Ahh... and where was this stated? Actually - where do we see a Corellian
> Jedi? Actually - if all Jedi are recuited into the order as sibblings
> after which all ties to their original lives are cut - how do Corellian
> Jedi even know they are Corellian Jedi?
For the first point; any book in which Corran and Luke converse typically
has a mention on how different Corellian Jedi were from the rest of the
Order in the Old Republic, "I, Jedi" being most notable. As for the second
point, this is one of those unrepaired stuff ups. Assumedly a Jedi would
know of his home system, but since to my knowledge no jedi from Corellia
have been encountered in the PRequel Movies (or the associated EU prequel
material), its hard to say what the rules are.
But this Corellian Jedi debate leads to something larger that still hasn't
been clarified to my satisfaction - when does a Jedi Knight become a Master?
TPM EU material implies that a Jedi becomes a Master when they successfully
train a Padawan Learner to Knighthood. Yet Qui-Gon never achieved this with
his first apprentice, yet he's still a Jedi master, and was a contender for
the Council (though admittedly there is one Knight on the Council). Neeja
Halcyon, as far as we know, never had an apprentice before his son (doesn't
mean there wasn't one though). So how did Neeja become a Master?
> > Corellian Jedi rarely
> > left the Corellian Sector, so chances are they did things differently.
>
> Well this I'd ave to counter with the fact that the Jedi temple - which
> they entered as infants after which they received decades of training -
> wasn't placed on Corellia or even in the Corellian Sector... so it would
> be more obvious that Corellian Jedi rarely _enter_ the Corellian sector,
> instead of vice versa. It could very well be that for example Kenobi or
> Qui-Gon are corellians but even they themselves would probably not know
> - or care. They are Jedi now, the galaxy is their playground.
A good point but a simple counter to this is that Corellian Jedi never
entered the temple in the first place. If the Jedi Order is a type of
religion, then it is not impossible to hypothesise that there are different
sects or orders within the religion that function in a different way, yet
remain true to the goals of the Order overall. The White Current, Aing-Tii
Monks and the Nightsisters are all examples of this (somewhat). Corellian
Jedi, as established in the EU, sought peace and justice primarily in the
Corellian System, whilst only venturing out into the greatst galaxy durin
times of the direst need.
> Well this is far better argumentation - yes Neeja was older, probably
> more realxed and all of that... but you'd say that a Jedi like Yoda
> would certainly surpass that again - and even he stayed within the
> celibat, just like Qui-Gon or Kenobi - even though you'd say that both
> of them would definitely attrackt their share of female attention. (Yoda
> probably too, but since I'm not of his species I can't comment on it.)
Some accounts state that Yoda lived a primarily solitary life, alomst a
hermit. Explains how he survived his self-imposed exile on Dagobah without
going balmy.
> But then again... not only Kenobi says this - Padme does so as well, and
> she has all the reasons not to remind him of that. She even quotes from
> common knowledge about Jedi not being allowed to love. Yes we will not
> know till may 2002 - but for someone who at one moment claims that "if
> its not in the movies don't mean it isn't so" you step very lightly over
> things that _are_ in the movies.
I'm not stepping lightly, I just don't have all the information yet. Padme
is seeking clarification on a point of Jedi lore on which she is unsure of
(at least from what I can gather), we know there are some misconceptions
about Jedi amongst the wider population of the Galaxy. The most glaring is
that people can't recognise a Jedi when they're wearing the uniform of one
(which admittedly does look alot like Tatooine civilain clothing, but
still...)
> yes all true... which for me would indicate all the more that Luke isn't
> actually a Jedi - at least not in the sense of the times before his
> birth. And no, the purges were not based upon anakin's too much love -
> it was based on the Sith hate for Jedi. I'm just pretty much convinced
> that Anakin's swing to that side of the Sith was mostly based upon his
> love... or his inability to have that love being a Jedi. Not being
> allowed love he stepped over to the hate (a very closely related emotion
> in many ways) of the Sith.
I'd rather not step into a "Luke isn't a real Jedi/pilot/farmer/well
adjusted person" debate. Its a touchy subject at the best of times. I feel
also that its a bit of an oversimplification to say that when being barred
from love, Anakin switched to hate; I suspect its going to be much more
complicated than that. On the flip side, much of Ben Kenobi's story tellings
to Luke in ANH can now be seen as over-simplifications of the truth, from a
certain point of view of course.
> Luke was in many ways a joke of a Jedi, someone trained for a day or 2
> to make sure he'll stand up long enough against Vader for the Anakin
> inside Vader to react, with his love.
Don't get me started on that first point. I don't think the plan was "Lets
get Luke to draw out Anakin." Obi-Wan stated pretty firmly that Anakin was a
lost casue, and only Darth Vader remained in his place. Yoda may have shared
these feelings or disagreed with them, I don't know. However, there is
enough evidence in the films alone to suggest that Luke was being shaped to
overthrow the Emperor and Vader and break the Empire. For a good argument on
this point, see a verbal belting Corran dishes to Luke in "I, Jedi."
> For such a "Jedi" to even attempt to create an order is in fact starting
all
> over again.
Even if Luke had received ALL the Jedi training, he'd have to start over
anyway. The Jedi were extinct, their infrastructure destroyed and their lore
and history forgotten. There was no secret cache of Jedi artifacts or
potential students waiting to be discovered.
> He just got the basics, his new order will have to go through millenia
> again before they reach the level of the old Jedi... and in the process
> they might learn that celibacy is definitely a requirement... if the
> "movie Luke" didn't just know that already, where the "Novel Luke"
> just didn't - because that would exclude all kinds of nice plot twists
> like him falling in love with Mara (who very conveniently also doesn't
> need to comply with the rule "forever will it dominate your destiny"
> even though she is not Luke or Anakin who are special because
> they _can_ go from dark to light and the rest can't).
Yoda's statement "no more training do you require" adds credence to the
"Luke was just a weapon" theory. Al he had to do was kill Vader and the
Emperor, probably because defeating them utterly would require that they be
killed...a nice way of getting over the "not attacking" rule.
As for celibacy, well it wasn't practical for establishing the New Jedi
Order, was it? Palpatine had effectively destroyed the Jedi Order and any
potential Force sensitives. (so we're told. The amount that cropped up meant
that Palpy did a half-assed job of it). Luke had to pass on what he had
learned, and we can only infer that meant his kids and Leia's kids. A few
people, myself included, believe that whilst this would have been a slow
process (Luke takes an apprentice, two at a stretch, trains them to
Knighthood, then he takes another apprentice or two whilst his apprentice(s)
take an apprentice or two...) it was the right way to do it. Kevin J.
Anderson and the Jedi Highschool provided the quick and easy path, which
caused a lot of problems later down the line.
Additionally, celibacy wasn't working out for the Old Order either. Their
numbers were in the decline.
But as for the point where Jedi can change from Light Side to Dark Side over
the weekend, I agree - its ridiculous. This is because it clashes with our
pre-conceived conceptions of what the Force and serving it actually means.
However, midichlorians clashed with our conceptions of the Force, and we
have to accpet those too now, don't we? The great out is, since Luke didn't
learn about them, hopefully they'll never be mentioned in the NJO :)
Alternatively, big bad Anakin Skywalker eventually renounced the Dark Side
too. So maybe it can happen...in extreme circumstances.
> Right! There is just one difference: we don't have a Highlander 2
> everybody just wants to forget about. We will have 6 movies which are
> _definitely_ star wars, no questions asked. For example the Fett story
> will have to be ignored... but there are many more of these things, like
> I tried to point out above.... but there is a breakingpoint: the EU is
> in many ways so interwoven and on its own that after EP3 is ready it
> will have no other connection with the movies (which are undeniably
> "Star Wars") other then some names that are the same. If we have a Fett
> story we have to ignore, but this story is part of the base of another
> story... doesn't this mean we have to ignore that story too? And will
> this not eventually take down the whole house of cards?
Well, we DO have the Holiday Special... But seriously, Boba Fett/Jaster
Mareel has been set (rather loosely, but it works) as another "cover story",
much like Jodo Kast. It does sort of work in the same way as the fact that
the Galaxy had no idea who Darth Vader really was. The Galaxy "knows" that
Boba Fett was once Jaster Mareel; a cover story to hide the real truth
(prejudice against Clones may also be an issue, Boba Fett probably doesn't
want to be a target of hate crimes...). Just like the Galaxy "knows" Darth
Vder was a Jedi Knight who betrayed the Order and became the Emperor's
champion...just like the galaxy "knows" Anakin Skywalker was a great pilot
who was murdered after the Clone Wars.
> This is what I meant with "here we go again" as TPM had this effect in
> many ways already... you must've noticed that before TPM people thought
> the novels and comics had all wisdom while afterwards this wisdom seems
> to be laughable and at least far more debatable.
Very true, but here another rule can be brought into play; the "levels of
canocity" rule. I think the order is roughly: Films, Books, Comics and so
on. Consequently, I can ignore the whole "Dark Empire II/Empire's
End/Crimson Empire I & II" storylines simply because they aren't mentioned
in the books.
But I think they are mentioned in the Essential Chronology...bugger :)
> Much of the dislike of "real fans" for TPM was also based upon the fact
> that it was like this, that their beliefs - based on the EU - weren't
> reinforced but even just plainly denied. Some people are still hoping
> for a glimpse of Thrawn or the Outbound Flight Project or even Jorus,
> Nejaa or anyone like that - and I'm pretty sure these hopes will not be
> really fulfilled. (of course if these people see even a slightly blue
> human somewhere in background of the movies they'll claim it to be
> Thrawn)
These are probably the same fans who want Mara Jade to be played by Angie
Everhart and Neeja Halcyon to be played by Michael Stackpole (actually, that
last point isn't a bad idea). But bear in mind, the Star Wars Galaxy is a
BIG place, lots of stuff can be going on behind the scenes and on the
sidelines that isn't shown in the films. Maybe it didin't happen, but maybe
it did. If its on the screen though, I have to accept it.
> Yes, I'm very much aware of that. I'm just very much intrested in where
> the breaking-point is... and how much more of the EU will just be
> plainly thrown out of the window by the time we have 3 more movies. Some
> of the repairing that has been done after TPM was already stretching the
> limits (like the explanations on why Dark Jedi could still exist). I
> think people are taking continuiety too far. A good and fun story set in
> the starwars universe denied from all sides is still a good and fun
> story. Trying to make 1 big thing out of many such stories might be nice
> brain exercize but it doesn't mean it makes more sense that way - often
> only less - and it regulary denies the quality of many of these stories
> in their own right.
Just because a story isn't "canon" doesn't mean it can't be enjoyed.
"Infinities" and "Tales" are prime examples of that. It comes down to a
fan's personal choice, but ultimately if word comes direct from Lucasfilm
what is and isn't canon, then those are the breaks.
> I wonder if Lucas will start prohibitting the (re)priniting of
> particulary conflicting stories after EP3 to keep making sense and a
> sense of continuety for newer fans - who didn't jump in in the "dry
> days" when we only had the (misunderstood) old trilogy and the EU, but
> only at the new trilogy. These fans would be very confused reading many
> of the things with in the EU which would just go straight against all
> they've seen in the movies... in which you also have to take in account
> that they won't read all of the EU in 1 go so they can make a fumbled
> sense of it again - interested by the new movies they'll pick up one
> novel and then ask themselves if this is even the same universe it's
> fitted in.
This is one argument as to the fates of certain characters in the NJO
series; as to avoid confusion for people who are only starting out with TPM
and moving from there. This is a stupid move for two reasons; firstly
readers and viewers should be taken for granted as being intelligent enough
to working things out for themselves. Secondly, this implies that the movies
should be viewed as "I, II, III, IV, V, IV". I disagree. The emotional
impact of TESB exposition would be completely lost.
But finally, thank you. Its been far too long since I've debated Star Wars
with someone in such an enjoyable fashion.
Regards,
Brandon
Kni...@uq.net.au
--
"Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational Christmas
tree"
-- Lin-Si-Tar Konnair
khen...@duck.uoregon.edu
..spoilers with no space! aaaaaargh!!!
Not to pick on you or anything, MB, but please stick some space (at least a
screens' worth) before you launch into spoiler territory. It's the natural
other half of putting a warning in your subject line (and thank you for that).
EpII trailer spoilers ahead!
L
I
K
E
T
H
I
S
P
E
R
H
A
P
S
(I'm a spoiler virgin except for the trailers, and they invite such lovely
speculation, especially with no other knowledge of the movie!)
>The latest AotC trailer brought up the idea that Jedi have an oath of
>celibacy... which don't seem to bad, many religious orders have such a
>thing,
Okay, I agree with that religious orders thing. But the Jedi, not knowing love?
I don't buy it. I don't know if it's due to an extended exposure to the EU or
not....but I don't think that Jedi should be giving up their humanity.
My view of the Jedi and their seeming lack of emotion is not that they
suppressed it all (a la Vulcans), but rather that they never let emotion control
their actions. That seems to be what the Dark Side is: allowing hate, fear,
anger, etc to dictate what one is doing, rather than thought of the overreaching
consequences. (Which the Force, being a thing of life (and Light), and
pervading the Universe, should enforce.)
But hey, it won't be the first time that my vision of things, and GL's, have
differed....(this is why fanfic is fun!)
>Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader because he loved...
I'm not sure that we can put it that plainly. I think it's sounding like he's
feeling controlled ("he's holding me back!" and "I *should* be
[all-powerful]."). [I could go into a rant on the Jedi Council. But I won't.]
The relationship with Padme/Amidala is a catalyst, yes. But.
(BTW, she looks awesome! I can't wait to see all the fun costumes she gets this
time 'round! And she doesn't appear to be the Queen now....hmmm....I won't
speculate too hard about it, because I'll undoubedtly be wrong.)
I had this pet idea that one of the straws breaking Anakin's back was his going
back to Tatooine and finding his mother dead / disappeared. And Palpatine
having done it, but framing someone else (the Jedi?) It seemed like his form of
deviousness. But, we'll see, won't we? (impatient bouncing!)
About the EU conflicts....I don't know. I'll be annoyed if they try to throw
out all the fun things (now the JA3 on the other hand....!) But I'm annoyed at
the title of EpII. And it's GL's world, not mine!
--Prophet Kristy
the more I predict, the more surprised I am ;-)
"There are many Antilles, but there is only one Wedge."
http://www.swfanfic.com/afw
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~khensche
[to email me: the duck is darkwing]
khen...@duck.uoregon.edu
>Kelly Grosskreutz wrote:
>> "MindB_ender" <A.C.W.T...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL> wrote in message
>> news:3BF5663B...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL...
Spoilers for EpII trailers, look out below!
W
H
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
!
!
!
>> I did see the Forbidden Love trailer, and I agree almost 100% with Wayne.
>> Especially when it comes to Yoda telling Luke about vows of celibacy.
Um....when was there time for that? It's not apparent that Yoda told Luke much
of the rules and regs--he was giving Luke the short and dirty survival training.
Luke has a hard time of it later because of the brevity of his training (yes, I
know, using the EU in this argument is counterproductive. Can't be helped).
> Also it would imply that Ben's actions against Maul were enough
>to push Kenobi over the edge.
I'm of the opinion that yes, for a few moments in that final battle at the end
of TPM, ObEwan *did* go to the Dark Side. He almost lost because of it....but
then realized what he was doing and saved himself. (I won't go deeper into it
than that, since that's incidental to the present discussion...) But MHO, of
course.
>> 2. Obi-wan "holding him back" could mean several things.
Very much so, absolutely.
> Everything points towards the fact that Jedi aren't
>allowed to love, marriage or have relationships (and yes, that might
>include family ones like with his mother.).
It does, and I suppose it's GL's world....but you know, that *really* bothers
me. Here the hopeless romantic in me rears its head...
Anyway, let me fall back on referring to my personal religion. Catholic priests
are not allowed to marry. They are celibate, end of story. The idea is that
they give over their entire life to God--and that perhaps a wife and/or children
may compete with God for the love of the priest. (I don't personally believe
there's a limit to human love, but there will be practical considerations.)
This doesn't mean they're not allowed to love: I'm sure most priests have great
relationships with their families. I have an aunt who's a nun, and I don't know
her really well, but I do know she's full of love, very close to her family (and
that family is *big*).
I don't think I'm getting to a point here, but that's my fault; Catholic
doctrine warring with my inner romantic, and wondering what a priest would do if
he happened upon a soul mate. I think I'm going to stop there.....this'll
require some deep thought and I should stop thinking aloud. ;-)
> This theme is laid so
>thickly on the whole promotional aspect of the movie that it becomes
>very hard to deny.
But you know? This is for promotion. And, well, to be crass: sex sells
movies....whereas it's pretty much not an issue in a SW movie.
> You might say that the trailer is too
>short to base such comments on - but some of the things inside the
>trailer are too explicit to be denied so lightly.
True. But again, it's promotional. Clearly the strain of his wanting to have a
relationship with Amidala warring with his apparent vows to the Jedi Order is a
factor. But I must doubt that it's the only factor. ;-)
And here's a thought: we're thinking of the Jedi in terms of the monastic
poverty, chastity, obedience vows. Hey, since when was Qui-Gon obedient to the
order?? They were exasperated with him....but they didn't kick him out.
>Yes the New Order is different - but there are reasons why the old order
>came up with it's rules: and the events with Anakin prove those reasons
>even more.
Well, if the rule isn't there to break, the stress of doing the forbidden thing
isn't there ;-P It's obvious Luke hasn't set up his Jedi order this way...and
has had no thought of doing so.
> The emotions coming with the territory are just too
>conflicting to take place inside a Jedi without the effects they had on
>Anakin. Even if Yoda didn't let Luke vow upon the celibacy, poverty and
>obedience I'm sure Luke was informed of them as they are the basis of an
>order...
But they may not be the basis. Here we run the risk of being "present-minded"
in talking about a completely totally different culture. (The same conflicts
many of us may have when confronted with the idea that Amidala was the leader of
her planet and was 14 years old. But Naboo is so different, and to them, this
is a normal thing.)
> I know most monestaries and orders on earth have such vows and
>I never even got close to them. The data didn't need to come from Yoda
>or Ben even - it sounds like something everybody could've known.
But not in a world where all that is known about the Jedi is rumours and myths.
Which is Luke's world. Vader and Palpy did their suppressing well.
--Prophet Kristy
wow, good topic!
khen...@duck.uoregon.edu
>MindB_ender wrote:
EpII Trailer spoilers getting milder, but still there. (we're largely
speculating!)
E
U
G
O
R
A
T
N
E
R
>But considering that the Jedi Order was alive and well for many
>generations, plus that Jedi aren't necessarily stupid enough to enforce
>their own extinction, they just won't make such a celibacy rule.
True, very true. Once again, GL contradicts....what else is new? (I must admit
to having hope by seeing that he's actually got a co-author for the screenplay
of this movie. Isn't that sad? We need a more JMS-like leader.)
Maybe they're only allowed to marry other Jedi? That would make more sense.
>> People have always been going on about the fear and the anger and the
>> lust for power in Anankin - but I see a kid in TPM with a strong love
>> for his mother, and already a love for Padme... and this continues in
>> AotC obviously. If he's so full of love and gets hampered in that there
>> comes frustration - which leads to the other problems instead of the
>> other way around - IMHO
>
>So how idiotic would it be of the Jedi if they forbade _the_ emotion
>that makes people do good things?
Hmmm, good point. (Why didn't I think of that??)
Like I said before....I think it's more in the letting emotions control you,
rather than the feeling of emotions themselves.
Get the feeling GL hasn't thought about this nearly as hard as we have? ;-)
--Prophet Kristy
Josh Nolan
khen...@duck.uoregon.edu wrote:
There's something for the next SE - "Make babies, you shall not. Babies are the
path to the dark side!" :)
> > Also it would imply that Ben's actions against Maul were enough
> >to push Kenobi over the edge.
>
> I'm of the opinion that yes, for a few moments in that final battle at the end
> of TPM, ObEwan *did* go to the Dark Side.
He let his anger get the better of him - perhaps he throttled back before he called
on power great and terrible... :)
> >> 2. Obi-wan "holding him back" could mean several things.
>
> Very much so, absolutely.
>
> > Everything points towards the fact that Jedi aren't
> >allowed to love, marriage or have relationships (and yes, that might
> >include family ones like with his mother.).
>
> It does, and I suppose it's GL's world....but you know, that *really* bothers
> me. Here the hopeless romantic in me rears its head...
<snip Catholic viewpoint>
>
> I don't think I'm getting to a point here, but that's my fault; Catholic
> doctrine warring with my inner romantic, and wondering what a priest would do if
> he happened upon a soul mate. I think I'm going to stop there.....this'll
> require some deep thought and I should stop thinking aloud. ;-)
Apparently the soulmate problem is one of the primary reasons for the dropout rate
at seminaries... :)
However, I do have something to add to the discussion here, even if it's just
rampant speculation -
What if it's just apprentices who are sworn to celibacy/whatever? Once a Jedi has
shown enough maturity in the Force to attain the rank of Master (or maybe just
Knight) the Jedi allow them to take spouses, should they desire. But while they are
still learning the ropes, they are forbidden from such things for their own
protection. (Remember, most apprentices and padawans are going to be teenagers -
it's hard to ignore that rush of hormones, so they are more strictly bound. I
repeat, speculation only.)
Anakin, beginning his training so late (yeah, whatever) is perhaps still an
apprentice while his contemporaries are all Knights or Masters. Which probably
rankles with him - he's so much stronger in the Force than they, he can do all sorts
of nifty Force tricks they can't, but he's still considered an apprentice... never
mind that being a Jedi is as much about outlook as about power. And Ben keeps
railing on at him, he doesn't understand... "Hey! It must be Ben's fault I'm not a
Knight yet! Yeah! If it wasn't for him getting in the way, I'd be a Knight for
sure! I could marry Amidala, and no-one could do anything about it!
I'll show *him*..."
The Force is strong in this one - unfortunately, the brain is not. :) (This is the
guy who ends up (TESB) doing more harm to his own command structure than the enemy,
remember...)
My fiftieth of a credit,
Josh.
--
"Always - always remember... Less is less, more is more,
more is better, and twice as much is good too.
Not enough is bad, and too much is never enough except
when it's just about right."
- The Tick.
Alison Sky
Adding spoliers for the Jedi Apprentice Book Series
One thing to add that might make this speculation more true. In the Jedi
Aprrentice books ((not KJA, the ones by Watson with Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan when
Obi-Wan was a teenager)) has Qui-Gon right now in books 14 on in the middle of
a romance. I can't remember what they said, if anything, about the council,
but I do know that Qui-Gon pleadged himself to a woman who was another Jedi.
Obi-Wan, of course, didn't understand or know of it. -=shrugs=-
Just more fuel to the fire.
*~ Alison Sky ~*
-=waves hand across screen in Jedi-ish fashion=-
One day, I will be a real Star Wars author.
Till then -> http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/jedichild/index.html
Ysanne
khen...@duck.uoregon.edu wrote:
>
> MindB_ender put forth:
> >Kelly Grosskreutz wrote:
> >> "MindB_ender" <A.C.W.T...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL> wrote in message
> >> news:3BF5663B...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL...
>
> Spoilers for EpII trailers, look out below!
>
> W
> H
> E
> E
> E
> E
> E
> E
> E
> E
> E
> !
> !
> !
>
> Anyway, let me fall back on referring to my personal religion. Catholic priests
> are not allowed to marry. They are celibate, end of story. The idea is that
> they give over their entire life to God--and that perhaps a wife and/or children
> may compete with God for the love of the priest. (I don't personally believe
> there's a limit to human love, but there will be practical considerations.)
There are. The Catholic Celibacy rule was established, AFAIK, somewhere
around 500 A.D.(+- 100 years) -- to make sure the Church would inherit
the priests' property. I may be naive, but I don't think the Jedi would
spell their own doom just for wealth.
Anyway, why compare the Jedi to a religious order? IMO, they're not.
They are more like a martial arts school for the very gifted, training
Force-sensitive people to think clearly despite their emotions, and
don't do harm unintentionally.
> And here's a thought: we're thinking of the Jedi in terms of the monastic
> poverty, chastity, obedience vows. Hey, since when was Qui-Gon obedient to the
> order?? They were exasperated with him....but they didn't kick him out.
Nor does poverty seem to be enforced - just look at the Jedi Council's
room.
> >Yes the New Order is different - but there are reasons why the old order
> >came up with it's rules: and the events with Anakin prove those reasons
> >even more.
>
> Well, if the rule isn't there to break, the stress of doing the forbidden thing
> isn't there ;-P It's obvious Luke hasn't set up his Jedi order this way...and
> has had no thought of doing so.
Yeah. That's like putting up a rule "No breathing" and then punishing
the ones who still do. Such a pointless rule is the ideal way to drive
people to the dark side.
Ysanne
MindB_ender
>
> MindB_ender wrote:
>
> But considering that the Jedi Order was alive and well for many
> generations, plus that Jedi aren't necessarily stupid enough to enforce
> their own extinction, they just won't make such a celibacy rule. It is
> contraproductive, and agains everything in human (and probably lots of
> other species') nature, plus love is an emotion that helps the light
> side. So why ban it?
All agreed - which is is another reason to bring it up - it sounds like
a contradiction. Where as the Sith are Hate - you'd expect the Jedi to
be Love... or something of that nature. I can understand however that
connected to love there is also the (quite big) chance of this love not
being forever... which would create a Jedi with a broken heart, which I
think you might say includes all kinds of emotions attributed to the
dark side. Almost inherent to Love is of course something like jalousy
too... I can understand the Jedi Order wanting to avoid getting a Jedi
with any of those feelings on their hands, not in the last place because
of their belief of the darkside being an irreversable path. Another
reason being that it might be seen as a distraction of the matter at
hand: serving the galaxy. A Jedi with a love and/or family might be a
bit more reluctant to put his/her life on the line for any of that.
> What points at it? Why do you think that Anakin's Jedi-ness is the
> problem and not e.g. that Queens of Naboo aren't allowed to have a
> relationship (they seem to get elected, so anything that could lead to a
> Queen trying to pass on her power by inheritance should be avoided), or
> something else like in the myriad of stories that aren't about Jedi and
> still include a man and a woman who are not allowed a relationship.
Well, the most direct hint is the name of the trailer "Forbidden Love"
or the text on the posters and banners "A Jedi shall not know Anger -
Nor Hatred - Nor Love." There is few that has ever been transsponded
this explicitly in Star Wars before, besides perhaps that the Empire
struck back at Hoth. Yes there is a miriad of stories on this subject -
but only a few I think where the love within one of the characters can
actually affect something with the power of the force... especially the
dark side.
> So how idiotic would it be of the Jedi if they forbade _the_ emotion
> that makes people do good things? Love in itself doesn't produce hate
> and anger, but quite the opposite. Not being allowed to love, now _that_
> does. And as love is a very fundamental thing, a no-love-rule in the
> order would mean that a great part of the Jedi would have to struggle
> with dark feelings -- just because the Jedi Order prohibits the light
> emotions. Very contraproductive. Not Jedi-like. A pointless, destructive
> chore.
I think the Jedi are not supposed to be "light" as opposed to the "dark"
of the Sith - they might very well need to be neutral in everything,
including their emotions. Their meditations and such might indicate as
such - perhaps they need to be "empty"? It would make them a lot more
stabile, as emotions are usually volatile and changing... in which a
"light" emotion can easily jump to a "dark" one in a flash - and back
again. In this case it wouldn't be seen as pointless or destructive - it
would seem balanced and at rest.
> I do think Jedi in general are allowed to love, and some other factor is
> in the way of Padme's and Anakin's love.
I don't think so anymore... I used to think that love was possible for
Jedi and that as such perhaps it would've been Kenobi who got in the way
of Anakin getting to Padme - lightly Lancelot/Arthur style... But the
hint these trailers have given would mean that Kenobi would never do
such a thing - not because he wouldn't want to, but because he's a
Jedi... who doesn't love. I think that Anakin being a Jedi will have
more reason to obstruct then Padme being a Queen - not in the last place
because I strongly believe that there is no other way to leave the Jedi
Order except by death.
MindB_ender
>
> Ysanne put forth:
> >MindB_ender wrote:
>
> EpII Trailer spoilers getting milder, but still there. (we're largely
> speculating!)
>
> E
> U
> G
> O
> R
>
> A
> T
> N
> E
> R
>
> >But considering that the Jedi Order was alive and well for many
> >generations, plus that Jedi aren't necessarily stupid enough to enforce
> >their own extinction, they just won't make such a celibacy rule.
>
> True, very true. Once again, GL contradicts....what else is new? (I must admit
> to having hope by seeing that he's actually got a co-author for the screenplay
> of this movie. Isn't that sad? We need a more JMS-like leader.)
>
> Maybe they're only allowed to marry other Jedi? That would make more sense.
That is a position that was brought up too... but I think the reasons to
prohibit a Jedi to love would make this even a worse case as these
reasons would count doubly. Also with such a small gene pool (10,000 -
and not all of the same species) interbreeding might have some very
averse effects, and probably not only biological - but also mentally. It
does bring up the possibility of "breeding" (super-)Jedi.. though that
could be done in testtubes too of course. But I guess we get too close
to the "Dune" view on things in that case:)
> >> People have always been going on about the fear and the anger and the
> >> lust for power in Anankin - but I see a kid in TPM with a strong love
> >> for his mother, and already a love for Padme... and this continues in
> >> AotC obviously. If he's so full of love and gets hampered in that there
> >> comes frustration - which leads to the other problems instead of the
> >> other way around - IMHO
> >
> >So how idiotic would it be of the Jedi if they forbade _the_ emotion
> >that makes people do good things?
>
> Hmmm, good point. (Why didn't I think of that??)
>
> Like I said before....I think it's more in the letting emotions control you,
> rather than the feeling of emotions themselves.
I think so too, by taking out these feelings the become more balanced,
neutral... perhaps in some search of a kind of Nirvana? It could be that
what Kenobi and Yoda eventually do - disappearing - is a direct result
of this... their being so neutral and empty that they are absorbed whole
into the Force - a physical form of reaching that kind of Nirvana.
*ponders about that some more*
dang, this _is_ getting heavy:)
> Get the feeling GL hasn't thought about this nearly as hard as we have? ;-)
I get the feeling he has in fact. What the Jedi turn out to be here
looks more and more like a combination of various monestary-systems
acrosss the world with a lot of eastern ideas connected to some kind of
Knights Templar. He is taking it quite consistently even... so much even
so that I'm starting to believe that the only thing Lucas _had_ worked
out completely from the start is what a Jedi is for him. Its not his
fault most people never really understood him correctly.
MindB_ender
<trivial data> It also had to do with the Pope (at that point still just
main priest of Rome) of that time - who was an infamous woman-hater. He
had all references to christ having a woman or not removed (evil
toungues even say that he had His wife put down as a whore instead) and
reflecting christ's life (the goal of priests I gather) would henceforth
be reflecting that unmarriaged status... stepping lightly over the fact
that christ is reffered to in the bible as "rabbi" and that this would
indicate that he was married. </trivial data>
> Anyway, why compare the Jedi to a religious order? IMO, they're not.
> They are more like a martial arts school for the very gifted, training
> Force-sensitive people to think clearly despite their emotions, and
> don't do harm unintentionally.
Various people like Tarkin, Solo and Tagge inside the GFFA seem to see
it as a religion (from memory: "...your sad devotion to that ancient
religion..." - tagge "...i find your lack of faith disturbing..." -
vader (note "faith") "...hokey religions and ancient weapons..." -
han...). The rebels seem to believe in the same religion... where a Jedi
would be a priest or monk I gather and the rebels just the lay-men. That
this religion comes with an infinite "deus ex machina" is just the
fantasy aspect of star wars i guess:)
> > And here's a thought: we're thinking of the Jedi in terms of the monastic
> > poverty, chastity, obedience vows. Hey, since when was Qui-Gon obedient to the
> > order?? They were exasperated with him....but they didn't kick him out.
>
> Nor does poverty seem to be enforced - just look at the Jedi Council's
> room.
Look at the vatican, or any other major temple complex... the Jedi
themselves wouldn't own more then perhaps just their sabre... and this
would fall to the Order again in case of death. Their "monk-like" robes
would indeed point out poverty as they don't look to be very elaborate.
The orderitself could then of course be far more wealthier.
> > >Yes the New Order is different - but there are reasons why the old order
> > >came up with it's rules: and the events with Anakin prove those reasons
> > >even more.
> >
> > Well, if the rule isn't there to break, the stress of doing the forbidden thing
> > isn't there ;-P It's obvious Luke hasn't set up his Jedi order this way...and
> > has had no thought of doing so.
>
> Yeah. That's like putting up a rule "No breathing" and then punishing
> the ones who still do. Such a pointless rule is the ideal way to drive
> people to the dark side.
I'm not entirely sure its a pointless rule... if we look at the person
we know that went against it, Anakin, you'd say that there is enough
reason to uphold it.
MindB_ender
>
> MindB_ender put forth:
>
> ..spoilers with no space! aaaaaargh!!!
>
> Not to pick on you or anything, MB, but please stick some space (at least a
> screens' worth) before you launch into spoiler territory. It's the natural
> other half of putting a warning in your subject line (and thank you for that).
I'm sorry.. I actually tried to add some space in other posts, but my
newsreader tried to be helpfull by cropping those empty lines - which
was why i kinda skipped it:\
Next time i'll use letters or something:)
> EpII trailer spoilers ahead!
>
> L
> I
> K
> E
>
> T
> H
> I
> S
>
> P
> E
> R
> H
> A
> P
> S
>
> (I'm a spoiler virgin except for the trailers, and they invite such lovely
> speculation, especially with no other knowledge of the movie!)
Same here... the trailers are what Lucas thinks we are supposed to see
now already - so who am I to say I shouldn't?;)
> >The latest AotC trailer brought up the idea that Jedi have an oath of
> >celibacy... which don't seem to bad, many religious orders have such a
> >thing,
>
> Okay, I agree with that religious orders thing. But the Jedi, not knowing love?
> I don't buy it. I don't know if it's due to an extended exposure to the EU or
> not....but I don't think that Jedi should be giving up their humanity.
Well, i think that giving up their humanity is just what they strive to
do... outside of course that many of them aren't human to begin with :D
When I see Jedi taking infants and cutting themselves from any family
ties and so on, this would just be the next step. Perhaps they think
involvement in such takes away from their involvement with the galaxy
and their neutrality? If they are to act as impartial
judge/jury/executioner in cases like we saw at the start of TPM it
wouldn't help if a Jedi from a particular background still has ties to
that.
> My view of the Jedi and their seeming lack of emotion is not that they
> suppressed it all (a la Vulcans), but rather that they never let emotion control
> their actions. That seems to be what the Dark Side is: allowing hate, fear,
> anger, etc to dictate what one is doing, rather than thought of the overreaching
> consequences. (Which the Force, being a thing of life (and Light), and
> pervading the Universe, should enforce.)
Yes, but on the other hand they "feel" the Force, they "feel - don't
think" and if the only way to access the Force is by feeling it would
stand to reason that they'd like to avoid the static other feelings
would respresent.... especially if these have a strong physical or
hormonal origin.
> But hey, it won't be the first time that my vision of things, and GL's, have
> differed....(this is why fanfic is fun!)
Definitely:)
> >Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader because he loved...
>
> I'm not sure that we can put it that plainly. I think it's sounding like he's
> feeling controlled ("he's holding me back!" and "I *should* be
> [all-powerful]."). [I could go into a rant on the Jedi Council. But I won't.]
> The relationship with Padme/Amidala is a catalyst, yes. But.
Alright, I have to agree with that... it's not _the_ reason for him
skipping sides.. but it would indeed be a catalyst.. and perhaps just
one of the main substances in the reaction.
> (BTW, she looks awesome! I can't wait to see all the fun costumes she gets this
> time 'round! And she doesn't appear to be the Queen now....hmmm....I won't
> speculate too hard about it, because I'll undoubedtly be wrong.)
Hmmm... she's called a politician in the trailers, and she appears to be
Coruscant. My guess would be that she took Palpatine's position in the
senate, as Naboo's Senator. According to the grape-vine Jar Jar has
taken the same position - but then representing the Gungans.
> I had this pet idea that one of the straws breaking Anakin's back was his going
> back to Tatooine and finding his mother dead / disappeared. And Palpatine
> having done it, but framing someone else (the Jedi?) It seemed like his form of
> deviousness. But, we'll see, won't we? (impatient bouncing!)
yes, it almost seems too obvious that something like this will happpen..
though I'd say that it would be more likely for Palps not to be involved
into events on tatooine - rather a sandpeople attack or Jabba/Watto
would be more in the line, although... in the end Palps always seems to
behind anything.
> About the EU conflicts....I don't know. I'll be annoyed if they try to throw
> out all the fun things (now the JA3 on the other hand....!) But I'm annoyed at
> the title of EpII. And it's GL's world, not mine!
the easiest way the EU conflicts could be fitten in is by just pointing
out that Luke founded a New Jedi Order and that he is very much a New
Jedi... unless of course AotC gives us very direct data that some things
just can't be.
The title? I don't know... I like it I think - less campy then "Phantom
Menace" anyway - but still with that "Flash Gordon" type of SF movie
touch that sw has to have:)
MindB_ender
>
> khen...@duck.uoregon.edu wrote:
>
> > MindB_ender put forth:
> > >Kelly Grosskreutz wrote:
> > >> "MindB_ender" <A.C.W.T...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL> wrote in message
> > >> news:3BF5663B...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL...
> >
> > Spoilers for EpII trailers, look out below!
> >
> > W
> > H
> > E
> > E
> > E
> > E
> > E
> > E
> > E
> > E
> > E
> > !
> > !
> > !
> >
> There's something for the next SE - "Make babies, you shall not. Babies are the
> path to the dark side!" :)
not as needed as fixing that Rancor scene in RotJ... it just looks
horrible. ;P
> > > Also it would imply that Ben's actions against Maul were enough
> > >to push Kenobi over the edge.
> >
> > I'm of the opinion that yes, for a few moments in that final battle at the end
> > of TPM, ObEwan *did* go to the Dark Side.
>
> He let his anger get the better of him - perhaps he throttled back before he called
> on power great and terrible... :)
I doubt its unavoidable for Jedi to take a smal step in that direction
now and then.. it probably lights them up like a Nova for the Sith _and_
probably takes away from their power. I always got the idea that Maul
actually fed his power off Kenobi's anger at that point.
> > I don't think I'm getting to a point here, but that's my fault; Catholic
> > doctrine warring with my inner romantic, and wondering what a priest would do if
> > he happened upon a soul mate. I think I'm going to stop there.....this'll
> > require some deep thought and I should stop thinking aloud. ;-)
>
> Apparently the soulmate problem is one of the primary reasons for the dropout rate
> at seminaries... :)
Well the same thing would very much count for Jedi I bet... with one
problem: I'm quite convinced that the Jedi use a "graduate or die"
system as this would just be logic. Last thing the Order would want is
half trained, failed semi-Jedi running about as they'd be directly
responsible for whatever mischief these would create. (after which
they'd have to hunt them down again etc.) With the power of the Force
comes responsibility... it would be very unresponsible to otherwise...
_most_ likely the only way out of this order is dead.
> However, I do have something to add to the discussion here, even if it's just
> rampant speculation -
>
> What if it's just apprentices who are sworn to celibacy/whatever? Once a Jedi has
> shown enough maturity in the Force to attain the rank of Master (or maybe just
> Knight) the Jedi allow them to take spouses, should they desire. But while they are
> still learning the ropes, they are forbidden from such things for their own
> protection. (Remember, most apprentices and padawans are going to be teenagers -
> it's hard to ignore that rush of hormones, so they are more strictly bound. I
> repeat, speculation only.)
This I wouldn't support, if only because its mostly the older Jedi that
show solitude in the movies. If the reasons for celibacy are those of
emotions and hormones these are really not much less in adults - also if
you trained your people for celibacy for particular reasons anyway, it
would stand to reason that given the chance you'd keep them that way.
Another problem I see is that settling Jedi takes away from their
effectiveness asthe guardians of peace and justice and so on. With a
spouce and family - a home even - they create ties which infringe on
their impartial status and it obliterates most of their will/drive to
give the ultimate sacrifices which their job require. Thgese problems
would actually count a lot more for active Jedi Knights on duty then for
padawans.
> Anakin, beginning his training so late (yeah, whatever) is perhaps still an
> apprentice while his contemporaries are all Knights or Masters. Which probably
> rankles with him - he's so much stronger in the Force than they, he can do all sorts
> of nifty Force tricks they can't, but he's still considered an apprentice... never
> mind that being a Jedi is as much about outlook as about power. And Ben keeps
> railing on at him, he doesn't understand... "Hey! It must be Ben's fault I'm not a
> Knight yet! Yeah! If it wasn't for him getting in the way, I'd be a Knight for
> sure! I could marry Amidala, and no-one could do anything about it!
Although connected to your earlier sugestion, which i don't support, I
think the set of mind you give here is close to what we'll see in the
movies. What I'd like to add is that Kenobi and Anakin are also good
friends and that they've got a long bond in that way (wouldn't go as far
as calling it love, but you might even see it that way... but more
platonic:)) and such a relationship can at times also feel like "the old
ball and chain". What could also play is a kind of jalousy between the
two friends for Padme's attention... even if that exists only in
Anakin's eyes. And there is of course the frustration of every student
that is getting close to graduation - but not yet.
> I'll show *him*..."
>
> The Force is strong in this one - unfortunately, the brain is not. :) (This is the
> guy who ends up (TESB) doing more harm to his own command structure than the enemy,
> remember...)
heheheh... but that was the dark side in him I'm sure. Sith live on fear
and to feel "good" they need the people around them to be in a continues
state of fear. Also explains why Piett survived as long as he did under
direct command of Vader.
MindB_ender
Not really... even in the movies it's quite obvious that Luke's training
didn't come close to that of the Old Jedi. I've timed it once and his
complete amount of training comes to the time the Falcon took to get
from Tatooine to Alderaan plus the time it took the Falcon to get from
Hoth to Anoat. The moment it starts making it's way from Anoat to Bespin
Luke is already in his fighter on his way there too. All together this
seems like 2 to 3 days at most, even though I'm aware that most people
think that it must've been at least a month... they often didn't see
that the whole of Luke's training with Yoda runs paralel with the chase
of the falcon annd not with the falcon going to bespin.
> > This theme is laid so
> >thickly on the whole promotional aspect of the movie that it becomes
> >very hard to deny.
>
> But you know? This is for promotion. And, well, to be crass: sex sells
> movies....whereas it's pretty much not an issue in a SW movie.
heheh, but we knew it was coming... else we wouldn't have Luke ad Leia:)
i'm aware that this is used for promotional means... but I doubt that
the rule of Jedi not being allowed to love will be taken back further
down the line - or the promotion would have meant nothing at all.
> And here's a thought: we're thinking of the Jedi in terms of the monastic
> poverty, chastity, obedience vows. Hey, since when was Qui-Gon obedient to the
> order?? They were exasperated with him....but they didn't kick him out.
He was obedient - in a certain point of view;) He went to the council
and said to do what they told him. Had QG lived, Anakin wouldn't have
gotten alf the training he got from Kenobi... more that what he could've
learned from just watching and the very odd explanation. Giving him a
sabre to practice with would be going too far already. Jedi have a large
freedom in the field... but the reason they are in the field in the
first place is because the order sent them there.
The exasperated thing I think is connected to the existance of factions
or suborders within the Jedi. Two of those would already be identified:
those of the Path of the Living Force and those of the Path of the
Unifying Force. (A third would be those of the Path of the DarkSide)...
I'm even getting slightly convinced that the sabre colours of the
various Jedi give a hint to this. (blue-unifying, green-living,
red-sith)
> >Yes the New Order is different - but there are reasons why the old order
> >came up with it's rules: and the events with Anakin prove those reasons
> >even more.
>
> Well, if the rule isn't there to break, the stress of doing the forbidden thing
> isn't there ;-P It's obvious Luke hasn't set up his Jedi order this way...and
> has had no thought of doing so.
Agreed... given that he didn't know. It might very well be that he'll
find out soon enough though.
> > I know most monestaries and orders on earth have such vows and
> >I never even got close to them. The data didn't need to come from Yoda
> >or Ben even - it sounds like something everybody could've known.
>
> But not in a world where all that is known about the Jedi is rumours and myths.
> Which is Luke's world. Vader and Palpy did their suppressing well.
Yes very much so... perhaps to make sure that might anything survive
from the Jedi it would be so unbalanced that it would always create more
dark siders. However, even if the RC church would disappear now and it
would be completely irradicated I'm sure that it would still be known 40
years from now that monks and priest didn't marry. Because that's
practically the "weirdest" thing a regular human can see in such a
group.
MindB_ender
>
> "MindB_ender" <A.C.W.T...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL> wrote in message
> news:3BF68A6C...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL...
>
> > > Not a new idea. Luke stated that he wasn't even sure if the Jedi were
> > > allowed to marry before his impending nuptials with Mara Jade.
> >
> > I'm aware off it not being a new idea, in fact we all could've known
> > from the old trilogy. It's not explicitly said - but it _is_ implied.
> > Just like it is implied that there are only white human males in the
> > Imperial Forces to make it look even more evil - as also racist, sexists
> > and speciesist.
>
> I disagree with it being implied. The only examples of Jedi we see in the
> Classic Trilogy are two old guys who are rather relcutant to recount the
> stories of their glory days.
Yes, agreed but they both do happen to be single... and so is Vader
actually, and Palps... even if you do not see the implication you must
agree that it's not contradicted by the old trilogy.
> I also put down the whole white supremesist Empire down to casting choices.
> You don't see much ethnic difference in the Rebel Alliance until TESB or
> ROTJ either.
Yes, and this proves it to me even more. Where as the rebellion got
females, blacks, asians, aliens in their ranks in ESB and ROTJ, the
Empire _stays_ fully white male human. The casting hence didn't have a
problem with finding anyone else... but they weren't cast as imperials.
And in a movie like RotJ where who tribes run around like aliens it
would've been too simple to add an alien Imperial... and Lucas didn't.
That indicates choice to me - and hence a purpose.
> > I do not fully agree with this, mostly because I do not recognize the
> > "track" or the whole idea of Dark Jedi (outside for example Mace) or a
> > species called Sith, however deeply this was embedded in EU lore.
>
> Why do you keeping mentioning Mace in connction with Dark Jedi? Am I missng
> something here?
He's dark and he's a Jedi.. hence Mace Windu is a Dark Jedi.
> > The obvious EU-defence of "if you don't see it in the movies don't mean
> > it don't exist" is about the worst founded dogma in the history of
> > fandom. According to that reasoning we also have Pink Jedi, Light Sith,
> > Alien Imperials, Monsterously Smelly Blubber Beasts from Kwelzebob,
> > Space Bound Mutant Sheep with lasers coming from their 654 horns, purple
> > light-weight Hutts, 3 meter tall Jawa's, hairless ewoks, etc etc. All of
> > which never appeared in the movies of course.
>
> I think that EU defence is so people don't rant so much. Basically, we have
> to accept what is in the movies as cannon, however fans grate over Greedo
> shooting first (another character who's very confusing thanks to the EU).
> Basically, take what you like from the EU and accept it, or ignore what
> doesn't work. Kevin J. Anderson took that approach for the Essential
> Chronology, managing to iron out quite a few bugs in Eu continuity matching
> with the films. Doesn't mean I forgive him for Jedi High or Qui Xux though
> :)
Yes, I'm aware that the whole defence line is made up in defence of all
the little EU things that just don't fit the movies... explicitly. What
I do think that people should watch out for is that the Expanded
Universe doesn't become an Alternate Universe. In many ways the EU is at
a disadvantage because most of the stories thought up for it tried to be
inter-consistent, which made a inconsistency in one story spread out
over others. Another disadvantage is of course that the EU is based on a
few author's views on what the old trilogy was about and what happened
there. The problem that a terrible lot of the EU is based upon the WEG
material is something that could've been avoided though - but that
would've meant that Lucasfilm should've created a database of such
background data itself, something which they apparently didn't do...
just licencing being their primarily task.
> > Ok, let me put it like this: If there were _any_ Dark Jedi roving
> > around, why would the Jedi council not bring up that suggestion when QG
> > suggested he just met a Sith - which should've been extinct for
> > millenia? Instead of bringing up this far more obvious choice - if there
> > were any dark Jedi that is - they grudgingly agree that it must be
> > Sith.... as there is no other choice. Dark or Rogue Jedi would be other,
> > far more obvious, choices - the fact that they didn't even contemplate
> > them makes it pretty sure there is no such thing. (for me that is).
>
> I highly doubt Qui-Gon would be unable to recognise a Dark Jedi if he
> encountered one (considering his first apprentice went to the Dark Side). He
> went to the Jedi Council simply because he didn't know what Maul was when he
> encountered him on Tatooine. He described his opponent as "well trained in
> the Jedi Arts", but he never implied that he may have actually been a fallen
> Jedi.
The reason being that there are no "fallen jedi" running around freely?
> Sith have been set up as the idealogical opposite of the Jedi. A Dark Jedi
> is a gray area, someone with all the training and some of the discipline of
> a Jedi Knight, but who has fallen into anger and dispair.
Yes, exactly my point... When the Jedi Order has trained someone and
this person goes evil - isn't it the Order's responsibility as trainer
and as guardians of the galaxy to hunt down and destroy all such
entities? Don't forget that Jedi look through eachother, they know
eachothers feelings and even the slightest sign of betrayal to the Jedi
cause would be met with propper action. A falling Jedi or even one that
tends to fall would be continuesly watched and definitely killed the
moment it couldn't be helped anymore. These Jedi would also be kept
inside the temple and so on... personally I highly doubt any Jedi would
be able to get away like that.
> > > Its been stated often that Corellian Jedi ran things very differently to
> > > those Jedi back at the ranch...temple...whatever :)
> >
> > Ahh... and where was this stated? Actually - where do we see a Corellian
> > Jedi? Actually - if all Jedi are recuited into the order as sibblings
> > after which all ties to their original lives are cut - how do Corellian
> > Jedi even know they are Corellian Jedi?
>
> For the first point; any book in which Corran and Luke converse typically
> has a mention on how different Corellian Jedi were from the rest of the
> Order in the Old Republic, "I, Jedi" being most notable. As for the second
> point, this is one of those unrepaired stuff ups. Assumedly a Jedi would
> know of his home system, but since to my knowledge no jedi from Corellia
> have been encountered in the PRequel Movies (or the associated EU prequel
> material), its hard to say what the rules are.
Yes and all this data pre-dates the prequels and finds absolutely no
support in the movies... which ofcourse would bring up the "if you don't
see it..." argument. What is known currently about the Old Jedi is that
they all are based in the temple at coruscant... also all that didn't
come from there, like Yoda, Anakin etc. There is no indication that a
different rule would count for corellians.
> But this Corellian Jedi debate leads to something larger that still hasn't
> been clarified to my satisfaction - when does a Jedi Knight become a Master?
> TPM EU material implies that a Jedi becomes a Master when they successfully
> train a Padawan Learner to Knighthood. Yet Qui-Gon never achieved this with
> his first apprentice, yet he's still a Jedi master, and was a contender for
> the Council (though admittedly there is one Knight on the Council). Neeja
> Halcyon, as far as we know, never had an apprentice before his son (doesn't
> mean there wasn't one though). So how did Neeja become a Master?
Probably because the writer thought it sounded better, a bit like why
Thrawn was a _Grand_ Admiral instead of something lesser but more
realistic? Overall I didn't get the impression that even Corran knew
very much about Nejaa... which offers of course escape routes to make
everything fitting to the new trilogy again.
What you generally see in the EU is that a Jedi is a Master when he
himselves decides he is (like Joruus for example) or when others start
calling him that. This could be accreditted to the difference between
the New and the Old Jedi Order. I got the impression Luke never even
heard the word "padawan" for example:)
> > > Corellian Jedi rarely
> > > left the Corellian Sector, so chances are they did things differently.
> >
> > Well this I'd ave to counter with the fact that the Jedi temple - which
> > they entered as infants after which they received decades of training -
> > wasn't placed on Corellia or even in the Corellian Sector... so it would
> > be more obvious that Corellian Jedi rarely _enter_ the Corellian sector,
> > instead of vice versa. It could very well be that for example Kenobi or
> > Qui-Gon are corellians but even they themselves would probably not know
> > - or care. They are Jedi now, the galaxy is their playground.
>
> A good point but a simple counter to this is that Corellian Jedi never
> entered the temple in the first place. If the Jedi Order is a type of
> religion, then it is not impossible to hypothesise that there are different
> sects or orders within the religion that function in a different way, yet
> remain true to the goals of the Order overall. The White Current, Aing-Tii
> Monks and the Nightsisters are all examples of this (somewhat). Corellian
> Jedi, as established in the EU, sought peace and justice primarily in the
> Corellian System, whilst only venturing out into the greatst galaxy durin
> times of the direst need.
Yes, I agree that there would be factions and sects within the Jedi...
the Sith being the most obvious one, the difference between "Living" and
"Unifying" indicating even more. I do think that the main Order would
either absorb or destroy any factions that would try to operate outside
it... perhaps the Jedi even have a faction which takes care of such
inquisition. Why? Because what they are playing with (The Force) is just
to powerful too let fall in the wrong hands, even if these seem benign
at first. It's a bit like a nuclear non-proliferation system.
> Some accounts state that Yoda lived a primarily solitary life, alomst a
> hermit. Explains how he survived his self-imposed exile on Dagobah without
> going balmy.
w/o going balmy? That's not what I saw in ESB ;)
> I'm not stepping lightly, I just don't have all the information yet. Padme
> is seeking clarification on a point of Jedi lore on which she is unsure of
> (at least from what I can gather), we know there are some misconceptions
> about Jedi amongst the wider population of the Galaxy. The most glaring is
> that people can't recognise a Jedi when they're wearing the uniform of one
> (which admittedly does look alot like Tatooine civilain clothing, but
> still...)
I think it's not so much a uniform.. It's a monk's cloak in many ways -
probably mirroring those of poor farmers all over the Galaxy and as such
not only giving them a cover, but also an indication of "poverty". They
are not in it for the money, they are there for the best of all - as
impartial parties.
This also goes against the Corellian Jedi idea... as they would be
highly partial towards corellia. When a conflict would occur between
republic and corellia - you'd get Jedi fighting Corellian Jedi...
something which just cannot be. And that's besides the word of a
corellian Jedi not being worth much outside the sector because of his
duty to that sector alone.
> I'd rather not step into a "Luke isn't a real Jedi/pilot/farmer/well
> adjusted person" debate. Its a touchy subject at the best of times. I feel
> also that its a bit of an oversimplification to say that when being barred
> from love, Anakin switched to hate; I suspect its going to be much more
> complicated than that. On the flip side, much of Ben Kenobi's story tellings
> to Luke in ANH can now be seen as over-simplifications of the truth, from a
> certain point of view of course.
Yes it's way more complicated then that, but love is a strong emotion
which will cause a lot stronger reaction then most others.... and Ben's
little speach in that hut is probably the one we should take with the
largest grain of salt of about all that's said in the movies... except
perhaps his speach in rotj - which might still be shown as a "certain
point of view" one as well. (wouldn't it be the biggest shock for us all
if it happens that the "leia is your sister" speach wasn't completely
true either and just told to luke to get him to do the right thing?)
> > Luke was in many ways a joke of a Jedi, someone trained for a day or 2
> > to make sure he'll stand up long enough against Vader for the Anakin
> > inside Vader to react, with his love.
>
> Don't get me started on that first point. I don't think the plan was "Lets
> get Luke to draw out Anakin." Obi-Wan stated pretty firmly that Anakin was a
> lost casue, and only Darth Vader remained in his place. Yoda may have shared
> these feelings or disagreed with them, I don't know. However, there is
> enough evidence in the films alone to suggest that Luke was being shaped to
> overthrow the Emperor and Vader and break the Empire. For a good argument on
> this point, see a verbal belting Corran dishes to Luke in "I, Jedi."
Agreed, in many ways it looks the most like Yoda and Ben had completely
given up on Anakin and just wanted the guy's head on a platter - with
Palps' next to it. But with their "certain point of views" the Jedi
could very well be working at a different level... perhaps they had
calculated that it would do Luke no good to go on the "save my daddy"
line from the start. The whole plan took decades to be completely get
worked out... it might've been a lot more complex then face-value.
> Even if Luke had received ALL the Jedi training, he'd have to start over
> anyway. The Jedi were extinct, their infrastructure destroyed and their lore
> and history forgotten. There was no secret cache of Jedi artifacts or
> potential students waiting to be discovered.
If he had gotten ALL of the Jedi training, _he_ would've been that cache
of Jedi artifacts... another good reason not to give him all was to
create a New Order completely... which again might very well be the plan
from the start. Perhaps Yoda and Ben had decided that the Old Order had
too much "bagage" and could do with starting completely anew without it.
The Old Order the movies would indicate a tired institution that's too
much set on their rules and so on... their treatment of young Anakin
being a prime example (to me at least)
> Yoda's statement "no more training do you require" adds credence to the
> "Luke was just a weapon" theory. Al he had to do was kill Vader and the
> Emperor, probably because defeating them utterly would require that they be
> killed...a nice way of getting over the "not attacking" rule.
Yes, perhaps a full training would've conditioned him too much to the
"do not attack" rule... perhaps that was why the Old Jedi couldn't take
care of business themselves. The strange thing I never got was what the
plan was _after_ that... was Luke actually to perish in the process? If
they wanted him to start a New Order, why not help him along that a bit
more... if even by hiding such a cache or anything for after he did the
job?
> As for celibacy, well it wasn't practical for establishing the New Jedi
> Order, was it? Palpatine had effectively destroyed the Jedi Order and any
> potential Force sensitives. (so we're told. The amount that cropped up meant
> that Palpy did a half-assed job of it). Luke had to pass on what he had
> learned, and we can only infer that meant his kids and Leia's kids. A few
> people, myself included, believe that whilst this would have been a slow
> process (Luke takes an apprentice, two at a stretch, trains them to
> Knighthood, then he takes another apprentice or two whilst his apprentice(s)
> take an apprentice or two...) it was the right way to do it. Kevin J.
> Anderson and the Jedi Highschool provided the quick and easy path, which
> caused a lot of problems later down the line.
Yes.. problems that could've been avoided. You'd say that after all the
effort Yoda and Ben went through to get rid of the Sith, they'd give
Luke a lot more help to avoid any more dark siders to appear just after
that.
> Additionally, celibacy wasn't working out for the Old Order either. Their
> numbers were in the decline.
Agreed, which is why I think they were effectively killing off the
force-sensitives themselves by their non-procreation.
> But as for the point where Jedi can change from Light Side to Dark Side over
> the weekend, I agree - its ridiculous. This is because it clashes with our
> pre-conceived conceptions of what the Force and serving it actually means.
> However, midichlorians clashed with our conceptions of the Force, and we
> have to accpet those too now, don't we? The great out is, since Luke didn't
> learn about them, hopefully they'll never be mentioned in the NJO :)
The lack of Sith in post-RotJ faced the various authors with a problem
of "Jedi-Suspense": half the movies is about Luke's battle with the Sith
and his temptations of the Dark Side and so on... without the Sith there
isn't much to do with his Jedi powers except being completely superiour
to anyone else... which in general don't give us a very interesting
story. This was countered by the various authors in various ways, Zahn
for example pulled open a can of "forgotten Jedi" like Joruus or even
Mara, others kept letting Luke swing from dark to light and again others
dug up old Palps from the dead. New Jedi then again went through all
that again as to not get boring by only having Luke have the fun and so
on...
...personally I fear that midi's will certainly be brought up in the EU
at a time (trust KJA to do so;))
> Alternatively, big bad Anakin Skywalker eventually renounced the Dark Side
> too. So maybe it can happen...in extreme circumstances.
Yes, but he is supposed to be the "Choosen One". He and Luke are special
because they can go to the Dark and back again. Of course this needed
more work with Vader... he was deeper into the Dark Side then Luke ever
got. But all in all I doubt anyone else could've pulled it off.. least
of all a marginally trained and especially hatefull being like Mara for
example.
> Well, we DO have the Holiday Special... But seriously, Boba Fett/Jaster
> Mareel has been set (rather loosely, but it works) as another "cover story",
> much like Jodo Kast. It does sort of work in the same way as the fact that
> the Galaxy had no idea who Darth Vader really was. The Galaxy "knows" that
> Boba Fett was once Jaster Mareel; a cover story to hide the real truth
> (prejudice against Clones may also be an issue, Boba Fett probably doesn't
> want to be a target of hate crimes...). Just like the Galaxy "knows" Darth
> Vder was a Jedi Knight who betrayed the Order and became the Emperor's
> champion...just like the galaxy "knows" Anakin Skywalker was a great pilot
> who was murdered after the Clone Wars.
Good explanation until someone writes another Fett novel with again
another background and again another way of him getting out of the
sarlaac again. ;)
> > This is what I meant with "here we go again" as TPM had this effect in
> > many ways already... you must've noticed that before TPM people thought
> > the novels and comics had all wisdom while afterwards this wisdom seems
> > to be laughable and at least far more debatable.
>
> Very true, but here another rule can be brought into play; the "levels of
> canocity" rule. I think the order is roughly: Films, Books, Comics and so
> on. Consequently, I can ignore the whole "Dark Empire II/Empire's
> End/Crimson Empire I & II" storylines simply because they aren't mentioned
> in the books.
>
> But I think they are mentioned in the Essential Chronology...bugger :)
Which will eventually make em pop up in other novels again since writers
use such documents for research. :)
> These are probably the same fans who want Mara Jade to be played by Angie
> Everhart and Neeja Halcyon to be played by Michael Stackpole (actually, that
> last point isn't a bad idea). But bear in mind, the Star Wars Galaxy is a
> BIG place, lots of stuff can be going on behind the scenes and on the
> sidelines that isn't shown in the films. Maybe it didin't happen, but maybe
> it did. If its on the screen though, I have to accept it.
Yes it _is_ a big place.. which is often my own problem with the stories
set in it: they are mostly about a very small group of characters which
visit what is in fact a small amount of planets. There'd be sooo many
possible stories that don't conflict with anything possible - if we'd
just not pin all of ourselves to the characters we know of the movies
(what about a story where none of the "Skywalker Bunch" appear, or even
any of the other known rebbies?). This is why I liked the stories of
"Tales of..." a lot as they sometimes did just that: fully star wars,
but no direct connection to the movies or anything.
*ponders about finishing his own fanfiction stuff*
> Just because a story isn't "canon" doesn't mean it can't be enjoyed.
> "Infinities" and "Tales" are prime examples of that. It comes down to a
> fan's personal choice, but ultimately if word comes direct from Lucasfilm
> what is and isn't canon, then those are the breaks.
Fully agreed:)
> This is one argument as to the fates of certain characters in the NJO
> series; as to avoid confusion for people who are only starting out with TPM
> and moving from there. This is a stupid move for two reasons; firstly
> readers and viewers should be taken for granted as being intelligent enough
> to working things out for themselves. Secondly, this implies that the movies
> should be viewed as "I, II, III, IV, V, IV". I disagree. The emotional
> impact of TESB exposition would be completely lost.
I'm not sure about that... perhaps the whole actual switch from Anakin
to Vader doesn't go as obviously as that. Perhaps Kenobi and Ben fight,
Anakin fills into the "molten pit" and that's it... next movie we just
got ourselves _another_ new Sith Apprentice of unknown origin. For all
viewers it would be easy to give a suggestion that Anakin never got out
of there and that he died at the spot. The surprice in ESB wouldn't as
much be that Vader is Luke's father... but that's he's Anakin... and
that Anakin survived.
> But finally, thank you. Its been far too long since I've debated Star Wars
> with someone in such an enjoyable fashion.
no problem, and same there:)
it's one of the reasons I posted here and not at rassm or afs - endless
SW discussions without all the trolling or aggressiveness are what afw
is far better suited for... and wth a new movie coming up discussion
becomes so much more fun as we don't really know a thing and can
actually only speculate:D
Andrew
<snip spoilerish stuff>
> Not really... even in the movies it's quite obvious that Luke's training
> didn't come close to that of the Old Jedi. I've timed it once and his
> complete amount of training comes to the time the Falcon took to get
> from Tatooine to Alderaan plus the time it took the Falcon to get from
> Hoth to Anoat.
That's several weeks, if not *months* between the two, from an absolute POV;
otherwise you'd be seeing Anoat's & Bespin's suns from Hoth. The Falcon's
(and probably the Imp fleet, since it's chasing them) being affected by
relativity; there's no other explanation for how they could get around
without seemingly large time lapses.
> The moment it starts making it's way from Anoat to Bespin
> Luke is already in his fighter on his way there too.
Then that's one *slow* fighter. Remember, the Falcon is forced to be at
sublight (no hyperdrive motivator). So, it's going to take a while, from the
outside POV.
> All together this
> seems like 2 to 3 days at most, even though I'm aware that most people
> think that it must've been at least a month... they often didn't see
> that the whole of Luke's training with Yoda runs paralel with the chase
> of the falcon annd not with the falcon going to bespin.
It runs parallel with both.
<snip>
--
Andrew Timson
===================================
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
"A sense of obligation."
Stephen Crane, 1899
Kristy Henscheid
>khen...@duck.uoregon.edu wrote:
>> MindB_ender put forth:
>> >Kelly Grosskreutz wrote:
>> >> "MindB_ender" <A.C.W.T...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL> wrote in message
>> >> news:3BF5663B...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL...
>>
>> Spoilers for EpII trailers, look out below!
Mostly just rampant speculation, but it's set off by the trailers, so we'll
leave in this nice litte....
>> W
>> H
>> E
>> E
>> E
>> E
>> E
>> E
>> E
>> E
>> E
>> !
>> !
>> !
That's your fault, Crispy!
>> >> I did see the Forbidden Love trailer, and I agree almost 100% with Wayne.
>> >> Especially when it comes to Yoda telling Luke about vows of celibacy.
>>
>> Um....when was there time for that? It's not apparent that Yoda told Luke much
>> of the rules and regs--he was giving Luke the short and dirty survival training.
>> Luke has a hard time of it later because of the brevity of his training (yes, I
>> know, using the EU in this argument is counterproductive. Can't be helped).
>
>There's something for the next SE - "Make babies, you shall not. Babies are the
>path to the dark side!" :)
ROTFL! That's so much better than Greedo shooting first.
>> > Also it would imply that Ben's actions against Maul were enough
>> >to push Kenobi over the edge.
>>
>> I'm of the opinion that yes, for a few moments in that final battle at the end
>> of TPM, ObEwan *did* go to the Dark Side.
>
>He let his anger get the better of him - perhaps he throttled back before he called
>on power great and terrible... :)
Yesyes--my take is, he charged out of the whatever-it-was (the most annoying
unexplained plot device known to man!) with not a little bit of anger, and was
whupping a$$ on Maul. But Maul, being much more experienced in the Dark Side,
easily turned that against him and almost got the better of him. Until Ewan,
hanging by his fingertips, thinks "oh crap! Okay, I promise to never use the
Dark Side ever again!" thus breaking Maul's hold on him (the stupefied look)
and, well, slicing him in two. The End.
>> > Everything points towards the fact that Jedi aren't
>> >allowed to love, marriage or have relationships (and yes, that might
>> >include family ones like with his mother.).
(snip)
>> I don't think I'm getting to a point here, but that's my fault; Catholic
>> doctrine warring with my inner romantic, and wondering what a priest would do if
>> he happened upon a soul mate. I think I'm going to stop there.....this'll
>> require some deep thought and I should stop thinking aloud. ;-)
>
>Apparently the soulmate problem is one of the primary reasons for the dropout rate
>at seminaries... :)
Eeep. Unfortunately, yes......
>However, I do have something to add to the discussion here, even if it's just
>rampant speculation -
But that's what it is! That's why it's fun!
>What if it's just apprentices who are sworn to celibacy/whatever? Once a Jedi has
>shown enough maturity in the Force to attain the rank of Master (or maybe just
>Knight) the Jedi allow them to take spouses, should they desire. But while they are
>still learning the ropes, they are forbidden from such things for their own
>protection. (Remember, most apprentices and padawans are going to be teenagers -
>it's hard to ignore that rush of hormones, so they are more strictly bound. I
>repeat, speculation only.)
But it makes a huge lot of sense! That, or my brainstorm last night of "maybe
they can only marry other Jedi."
>Anakin, beginning his training so late (yeah, whatever) is perhaps still an
>apprentice while his contemporaries are all Knights or Masters. Which probably
>rankles with him - he's so much stronger in the Force than they, he can do all sorts
>of nifty Force tricks they can't, but he's still considered an apprentice...
Oh, yeah, that could be a major rankling point. And again, "ObEwan's holding me
back!"
>The Force is strong in this one - unfortunately, the brain is not. :)
T-shirt; arrow pointing downward; "I'm with stupid." (Okay, maybe not, but I
hadta say it. ;-)
> (This is the
>guy who ends up (TESB) doing more harm to his own command structure than the enemy,
>remember...)
::clutching trachea:: Ayup.
Kristy Henscheid
>
>>> Spoilers for EpII trailers, look out below!
>Adding spoliers for the Jedi Apprentice Book Series
>>>
>>> W
>>> H
>>> E
>>> E
>>> E
>>> E
>>> E
>>> E
>>> E
>>> E
>>> E
>>> !
>>> !
>>> !
>>>
>>Jedi has
>>shown enough maturity in the Force to attain the rank of Master (or maybe
>>just
>>Knight) the Jedi allow them to take spouses, should they desire. But while
>>they are
>>still learning the ropes, they are forbidden from such things for their own
>>protection. (Remember, most apprentices and padawans are going to be
>>teenagers -
>>it's hard to ignore that rush of hormones, so they are more strictly bound.
>>I
>>repeat, speculation only.)
>
>One thing to add that might make this speculation more true. In the Jedi
>Aprrentice books ((not KJA, the ones by Watson with Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan when
>Obi-Wan was a teenager)) has Qui-Gon right now in books 14 on in the middle of
>a romance. I can't remember what they said, if anything, about the council,
>but I do know that Qui-Gon pleadged himself to a woman who was another Jedi.
>Obi-Wan, of course, didn't understand or know of it. -=shrugs=-
Ahhhhhhh. So, yeah. Relationships with other Jedi may be kosher. (Then again,
Qui-Gon doesn't really listen to the Council much, taking what I know from TPM.)
--Prophet Kristy
Kristy Henscheid
Yup yup. And neither was it followed much, for quite a bit of the early years.
Hey, they couldn't get guys to join at the outset because it was viewed as an
offshoot of Judaism and they thought castration was a prerequisite! Why scare
them off with enforced celibacy? (ah, yes, the Church has such a colourful
history.)
>Anyway, why compare the Jedi to a religious order? IMO, they're not.
>They are more like a martial arts school for the very gifted, training
>Force-sensitive people to think clearly despite their emotions, and
>don't do harm unintentionally.
There are some aspects of a religious order, yes, but the parallel can be
carried a bit too far. Again, we're trying to define this as something similar
to our knoweldge....when it isn't anything like what we're used to.
>> And here's a thought: we're thinking of the Jedi in terms of the monastic
>> poverty, chastity, obedience vows. Hey, since when was Qui-Gon obedient to the
>> order?? They were exasperated with him....but they didn't kick him out.
>
>Nor does poverty seem to be enforced - just look at the Jedi Council's
>room.
Point!
--Prophet Kristy
what a fun discussion! :o)
MindB_ender
>
> "MindB_ender" <A.C.W.T...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL> wrote in message
> news:3BF7F609...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL...
>
> <snip spoilerish stuff>
>
> > Not really... even in the movies it's quite obvious that Luke's training
> > didn't come close to that of the Old Jedi. I've timed it once and his
> > complete amount of training comes to the time the Falcon took to get
> > from Tatooine to Alderaan plus the time it took the Falcon to get from
> > Hoth to Anoat.
>
> That's several weeks, if not *months* between the two, from an absolute POV;
> otherwise you'd be seeing Anoat's & Bespin's suns from Hoth. The Falcon's
> (and probably the Imp fleet, since it's chasing them) being affected by
> relativity; there's no other explanation for how they could get around
> without seemingly large time lapses.
lol, first time I ever saw anyone bring relativity in star wars! Point
is that the GFFA is definitely not in our universe - or going according
to our physics. What we see is a ship going from one Star-System to
another at speeds below light. If you look at an average distance
between star systems (at the most positive lets say 2 lightyears) it
would take them years - not months to reach the next one. (And note:
Hoth System, Anoat System and Bespin System are each noted as such in
the movie... and they are all outerrim planets, where starfield density
drops... distances could get up to 10s of lightyears) All in all you'd
say the falcon does at least 4 lightyears, but more likely far more then
that, at "sublight" in less then 4 years.... now where is the
relativity in that? As we see a ship fly at way over lightspeed below
lightspeed. And yes, else you'd be seeing Anoat and Bespin from Hoth...
which you don't...
How do we also know that it didn't take months or years or even weeks is
story-progression: if they took such stretches of time in the falcon,
Han and Leia wouldn't be at the unstabile start of their relationship at
cloudcity... they'd been banging eachother for weeks already just to
pass the time. Hell if it had taken years the Solo twins would've met
Lando first time there and then... on their own feet >:)
> > The moment it starts making it's way from Anoat to Bespin
> > Luke is already in his fighter on his way there too.
>
> Then that's one *slow* fighter. Remember, the Falcon is forced to be at
> sublight (no hyperdrive motivator). So, it's going to take a while, from the
> outside POV.
Not really, distance between dagobah and bespin would be considerably
bigger then the distance between Anoat and Bespin. But since we saw the
falcon already fly from one system (Hoth) to another (Anoat) at
sublight, chased by the empire all the way and not taking much longer
then lets say a day (seen story progress... if relativity came into
play... the empire could've cut the falcon off easily by using
hyperdrives. In any case I guess it's proven they didn't take years).
This cannot be in our universe or physics... but apparently it can
there, so the Falcon could very well have done a few hours (like 10 or
even 2) to get from Anoat to Bespin - sublight. The movies are mostly
"realtime" and cover maximum 2 to 5 days per movie - not taking
relativity into account - even if in that time they travel from system
to system w/o a hyperdrive.
> > All together this
> > seems like 2 to 3 days at most, even though I'm aware that most people
> > think that it must've been at least a month... they often didn't see
> > that the whole of Luke's training with Yoda runs paralel with the chase
> > of the falcon annd not with the falcon going to bespin.
>
> It runs parallel with both.
I'd suggest you watch ESB again - it only runs parallel with the chase:
during falcon chase luke lands, meets and gets trained... inc his view
of the future.... then there is a sequence of 3 scenes:
- falcon drops off isd and goes from anoat to bespin
- luke takes off to Bespin as well
- falcon in the clouds of bespin
Taking into account that Lucas is no Tarantino and there isn't a
flashback in the movies even, these scenes, like all in starwars, are
sequencial - or take place at the same time. It almost seems as Lucas
holds to the old renaissance theatre ideas of unity of time, location
and character in a way.
Josh Nolan
MindB_ender wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
> >
> > "MindB_ender" <A.C.W.T...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL> wrote in message
> > news:3BF7F609...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL...
> >
> > <snip spoilerish stuff>
> >
> > > Not really... even in the movies it's quite obvious that Luke's training
> > > didn't come close to that of the Old Jedi. I've timed it once and his
> > > complete amount of training comes to the time the Falcon took to get
> > > from Tatooine to Alderaan plus the time it took the Falcon to get from
> > > Hoth to Anoat.
> >
> > That's several weeks, if not *months* between the two, from an absolute POV;
> > otherwise you'd be seeing Anoat's & Bespin's suns from Hoth. The Falcon's
> > (and probably the Imp fleet, since it's chasing them) being affected by
> > relativity; there's no other explanation for how they could get around
> > without seemingly large time lapses.
>
> lol, first time I ever saw anyone bring relativity in star wars! Point
> is that the GFFA is definitely not in our universe - or going according
> to our physics. What we see is a ship going from one Star-System to
> another at speeds below light. If you look at an average distance
> between star systems (at the most positive lets say 2 lightyears) it
> would take them years - not months to reach the next one.
From an outside observer. Possibly. (Depends on the observer's reference
frame). But onboard the Falcon, time dilates. The length of the Falcon's
direction of travel contracts. Depending on just how fast the Falcon was going,
it could have been months for those on board, or possibly even *hours*.
That's relativity for you - it's all, well, relative. :)
So what might have been hours, days, months, whatever for the Falcon crew could
well have been a few years, or possibly even decades, for Luke. If so, then -
a) Luke ages physically at a slower rate than an Earth human
b) Training to become a Jedi is *hard*. Especially when they start at about 21 or
whatever.
> How do we also know that it didn't take months or years or even weeks is
> story-progression: if they took such stretches of time in the falcon,
> Han and Leia wouldn't be at the unstabile start of their relationship at
> cloudcity... they'd been banging eachother for weeks already just to
> pass the time. Hell if it had taken years the Solo twins would've met
> Lando first time there and then... on their own feet >:)
So it might have just taken hours aboard the Falcon...
>
> Not really, distance between dagobah and bespin would be considerably
> bigger then the distance between Anoat and Bespin. But since we saw the
> falcon already fly from one system (Hoth) to another (Anoat) at
> sublight, chased by the empire all the way
Were they? What about that whole floating away with the trash thing?
> and not taking much longer
> then lets say a day (seen story progress... if relativity came into
> play... the empire could've cut the falcon off easily by using
> hyperdrives. In any case I guess it's proven they didn't take years).
Nope, it's not. The Empire arrives on Bespin before the Falcon does, at any
rate. (Presumably being called in by Fett...)
>
> This cannot be in our universe or physics...
Yes, it can. Just not with our propulsion technologies.
> I'd suggest you watch ESB again - it only runs parallel with the chase:
> during falcon chase luke lands, meets and gets trained... inc his view
> of the future.... then there is a sequence of 3 scenes:
> - falcon drops off isd and goes from anoat to bespin
> - luke takes off to Bespin as well
> - falcon in the clouds of bespin
>
> Taking into account that Lucas is no Tarantino and there isn't a
> flashback in the movies even, these scenes, like all in starwars, are
> sequencial - or take place at the same time. It almost seems as Lucas
> holds to the old renaissance theatre ideas of unity of time, location
> and character in a way.
Or he didn't really think it out. Or the Falcon had a backup hyperdrive (WEG -
ick). Or he thought it would be too tricky to show...
I'm sure this argument has been done to death in different ways and different
places... still, it's fun!
Kristy Henscheid
Well, I present it as an alternative to the total prohibition. Do you want a
small gene pool or none at all? ;-) Hey, the Jedi Council may be dense, but
they're not *that* stupid.
Though, as another student in my lab today commented, there may be Jedi just
"springing up" all over the galaxy. We'd have to know the rate of
"spontanetous" Jedi vs. genetic ones, in order to judge the various theories.
Though, I think the implication is that Jedi powers are mainly inherited.
Qui-Gon asks who Anakin's father is; not to mention the whole Skywalker clan.
> It
>does bring up the possibility of "breeding" (super-)Jedi.. though that
>could be done in testtubes too of course. But I guess we get too close
>to the "Dune" view on things in that case:)
Now That could get interesting!! Though I can easily see that sort of
experiment backfiring on the Council. (as is becoming obvious, I don't have a
very high opinion of them. ;-)
>> Like I said before....I think it's more in the letting emotions control you,
>> rather than the feeling of emotions themselves.
>
>I think so too, by taking out these feelings the become more balanced,
>neutral... perhaps in some search of a kind of Nirvana? It could be that
>what Kenobi and Yoda eventually do - disappearing - is a direct result
>of this... their being so neutral and empty that they are absorbed whole
>into the Force - a physical form of reaching that kind of Nirvana.
You keep changing your argument. ;-P yeah, I'm with that. But it goes against
the idea of totally forbidding love (and, by implication, other emotions).
First, there's Ysanne's very good point about them losing their driving force
without said emotion. And then there's my opinion that you can't just *not*
love. Sorry, not human.
>*ponders about that some more*
>dang, this _is_ getting heavy:)
::bg:: Funfun!!
>> Get the feeling GL hasn't thought about this nearly as hard as we have? ;-)
>
>I get the feeling he has in fact.
But then why aren't we getting his vision? He's either got a very messed-up
system....or we're just not getting his meaning. Which, in a saga this big,
ends up meaning very sloppy storytelling.
But there's always the chance that maybe GL's taken a page from Mike Stackpole's
book and is being devious on us. The real test will be in watching EpII!
--Prophet Kristy
speaking of MAS...one week to FD! Whooooooo!!
Kristy Henscheid
>Ysanne wrote:
>> MindB_ender wrote:
Speculation about the Jedi, spurred by things we see in EpII trailers. Spoilers
ahead.
L
O
O
K
O
U
T
B
E
L
O
W
!
>> But considering that the Jedi Order was alive and well for many
>> generations, plus that Jedi aren't necessarily stupid enough to enforce
>> their own extinction, they just won't make such a celibacy rule. It is
>> contraproductive, and agains everything in human (and probably lots of
>> other species') nature, plus love is an emotion that helps the light
>> side. So why ban it?
>
>All agreed - which is is another reason to bring it up - it sounds like
>a contradiction.
A big one. Which, luckily, we're crazy enough to try and resolve using very
limited knowledge. ;-)
> Where as the Sith are Hate - you'd expect the Jedi to
>be Love... or something of that nature.
Absolutely. Otherwise, what's the point? On the really basic level that's
supposedly what SW is all about...a light/dark struggle.
> I can understand however that
>connected to love there is also the (quite big) chance of this love not
>being forever... which would create a Jedi with a broken heart, which I
>think you might say includes all kinds of emotions attributed to the
>dark side.
Yes, this could end up being a problem. Which may argue in favor of Jedi not
being allowed to have relationships outside the Order, but intra-Jedi ones are
okay. With the Force, you're more likely to correctly judge a mate in the first
place, and be able to sense if something may be going sour and institute
preventative measures....also, your "brethren" in the Order would be a guiding,
sympathetic force in the event of a break-up; and do their best to prevent one
in the first place. And....another point which just flew out of my head.
> Almost inherent to Love is of course something like jalousy
>too...
Perhaps we should break this down a bit: if we accept that Jedi are forbidden to
love (which I don't, but for the sake of argument), then does that apply to
*all* love, or is it more sexual love which is forbidden and brotherly love
which is okay? What I'm getting at is, the idea of brotherly love is that it's
basically the opposite of jealousy.
Discounting the procreation problem, I can see brotherly love being kosher and
sexual love being not so. The latter brings up a lot more problems in the
absence of the former.
Then again, we've basically been assuming that one needs love to have babies,
which human history and its arranged marriages has shown to be not true. I find
it hard to imagine the Council ordering two of its Jedi to...hmmmphmm, ;-), but
again, it's a completely different culture we're talking about. This could be a
possiblity.
> Another
>reason being that it might be seen as a distraction of the matter at
>hand: serving the galaxy. A Jedi with a love and/or family might be a
>bit more reluctant to put his/her life on the line for any of that.
Wait, we're not having the discussion about priests anymore. ;-)
Um, right. So, again, perhaps fraternal love could be a driving force (and
should be, really, which I think what Ysanne's getting at). The good of the
many being put ahead of the good of the one/few.
>> What points at it? Why do you think that Anakin's Jedi-ness is the
>> problem and not e.g. that Queens of Naboo aren't allowed to have a
>> relationship (they seem to get elected, so anything that could lead to a
>> Queen trying to pass on her power by inheritance should be avoided), or
>> something else like in the myriad of stories that aren't about Jedi and
>> still include a man and a woman who are not allowed a relationship.
>
>Well, the most direct hint is the name of the trailer "Forbidden Love"
>or the text on the posters and banners "A Jedi shall not know Anger -
>Nor Hatred - Nor Love."
This is true. I'm not denying the promos, I'm just trying to suss them out,
because they don't make logical sense to me. ;-)
--Prophet Kristy
Kristy Henscheid
>khen...@duck.uoregon.edu wrote:
>> MindB_ender put forth:
>>
>> ..spoilers with no space! aaaaaargh!!!
>>
>> Not to pick on you or anything, MB, but please stick some space (at least a
>> screens' worth) before you launch into spoiler territory. It's the natural
>> other half of putting a warning in your subject line (and thank you for that).
>
>I'm sorry.. I actually tried to add some space in other posts, but my
>newsreader tried to be helpfull by cropping those empty lines - which
>was why i kinda skipped it:\
>Next time i'll use letters or something:)
Yeah, that's why I do the letters, because some newsreader tend to crop out
blank space. No prob. :o)
>> EpII trailer spoilers ahead!
>>
>> L
>> I
>> K
>> E
>>
>> T
>> H
>> I
>> S
>>
>> P
>> E
>> R
>> H
>> A
>> P
>> S
>>
>> (I'm a spoiler virgin except for the trailers, and they invite such lovely
>> speculation, especially with no other knowledge of the movie!)
>
>Same here... the trailers are what Lucas thinks we are supposed to see
>now already - so who am I to say I shouldn't?;)
My thinking exactly....HEY! Get out of my head! ProphetessTelepathy is only
supposed to work in one direction. ;-P
>> >The latest AotC trailer brought up the idea that Jedi have an oath of
>> >celibacy... which don't seem to bad, many religious orders have such a
>> >thing,
>>
>> Okay, I agree with that religious orders thing. But the Jedi, not knowing love?
>> I don't buy it. I don't know if it's due to an extended exposure to the EU or
>> not....but I don't think that Jedi should be giving up their humanity.
>
>Well, i think that giving up their humanity is just what they strive to
>do... outside of course that many of them aren't human to begin with :D
Well, um....youknowwhatImean. (oops)
>When I see Jedi taking infants and cutting themselves from any family
>ties and so on, this would just be the next step. Perhaps they think
>involvement in such takes away from their involvement with the galaxy
>and their neutrality? If they are to act as impartial
>judge/jury/executioner in cases like we saw at the start of TPM it
>wouldn't help if a Jedi from a particular background still has ties to
>that.
I agree that starting them young lessens the chance of them having any
"homeworld" ties to interfere with the Jedi's diplomatic function. Seems like
a fairly good plan. Also, I can see that a truly deep, well-grounded, totally
second-nature link with the Force would be better attained if training was
started that early. (Apparently Jedi powers don't wait until puberty to
manifest, unlike in other fandoms I can think of.)
I still don't see where familial / fraternal / neighborly love would get left
out of that. Humans (by implication, sentient species) do a lot better,
developmentally speaking, when brought up in a caring environment. I think
that's fairly well-proven. And even being taken away from your family as an
infant...the Jedi order, ie your trainers and comrades, would then become your
family in that situation. (Geez, they don't expose these babies on a hillside
and see if they can hack it with innate Force powers! At least, I hope not!)
The alternative seems really callous and....inhuman. (insentient?)
I think my main concern is that I fail to see the possibility of a group of
people being able to work toward peace and justice in their community without
some notion of the greater emotions--the "love thy neighbor as thyself" idea.
>> But hey, it won't be the first time that my vision of things, and GL's, have
>> differed....(this is why fanfic is fun!)
>
>Definitely:)
::grin::
>> >Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader because he loved...
>>
>> I'm not sure that we can put it that plainly. I think it's sounding like he's
>> feeling controlled ("he's holding me back!" and "I *should* be
>> [all-powerful]."). [I could go into a rant on the Jedi Council. But I won't.]
>> The relationship with Padme/Amidala is a catalyst, yes. But.
>
>Alright, I have to agree with that... it's not _the_ reason for him
>skipping sides.. but it would indeed be a catalyst.. and perhaps just
>one of the main substances in the reaction.
It's sounding more and more like that's the basis of the film. And if it is, I
must say I will be disappointed by that. As I think we're seeing, the issue is
a lot more complicated. ;-)
(Though like I commented to a coworker today, I know it won't be perfect, it
won't be the classic trilogy by a long shot, but as long as there are some cool
lightsabre battles, I know I'll be thrilled! And despite these misgivings, the
"Forbidden Love" trailer *really* excited me. :-D)
>> (BTW, she looks awesome! I can't wait to see all the fun costumes she gets this
>> time 'round! And she doesn't appear to be the Queen now....hmmm....I won't
>> speculate too hard about it, because I'll undoubedtly be wrong.)
>
>Hmmm... she's called a politician in the trailers, and she appears to be
>Coruscant. My guess would be that she took Palpatine's position in the
>senate, as Naboo's Senator. According to the grape-vine Jar Jar has
>taken the same position - but then representing the Gungans.
Seems that way. It's more explicit in the "Mystery" trailer (thanks, BTW--I
don't buy DVDs, so...)
Jar-Jar as a politician. That's a scary thought. Though, given what we've seen
of the Old Republic Galactic Senate (heck, even the NR), he'd be shouted down
fairly easily and couldn't do much damage. ;-) Hey, I don't mine Jar-Jar as
comic relief, unless the jokes are really bad (ie, the scatological ones from
TPM) (the tongue-grabbing scene is priceless IMHO)....but otherwise he's just
filler.
>> I had this pet idea that one of the straws breaking Anakin's back was his going
>> back to Tatooine and finding his mother dead / disappeared. And Palpatine
>> having done it, but framing someone else (the Jedi?) It seemed like his form of
>> deviousness. But, we'll see, won't we? (impatient bouncing!)
>
>yes, it almost seems too obvious that something like this will happpen..
Well, this whole prequel trilogy is going to have to be fairly dark. (Anakin's
becoming Vader, fer chrissake.) So....what are the chances of Shmi actually
sticking around long enough for Anakin to have the freedom to go visit her (and
free her)??
>though I'd say that it would be more likely for Palps not to be involved
>into events on tatooine - rather a sandpeople attack or Jabba/Watto
>would be more in the line, although... in the end Palps always seems to
>behind anything.
Yeah...that was my thought as I was reading that sentence (till I got to the
end). He's more devious than we might even be able to imagine. I mean, geez,
he set the Trade Federation against his own planet. That move was fairly canny
of him. (he did lose his apprentice, but he got elected as Chancellor, so who
would you say came out on top in that one? ::wink:: I'll give you three
guesses, and one of them's not the Good Guys.)
>> About the EU conflicts....I don't know. I'll be annoyed if they try to throw
>> out all the fun things (now the JA3 on the other hand....!) But I'm annoyed at
>> the title of EpII. And it's GL's world, not mine!
>
>the easiest way the EU conflicts could be fitten in is by just pointing
>out that Luke founded a New Jedi Order and that he is very much a New
>Jedi...
And I think that would be very easy to do, given that Farmboy had--what? Three?
whole days of training. Relativity arguments aside (on the danger of my head
exploding), it was Not Very Much. A lot on the
using-the-Force-to-augment-strength, and less on the philosophy of it all. And,
as the EU has gone along, we've seen how difficult of a time he's had finding
reliable data on the vast part of Jedi lore he missed out on.
> unless of course AotC gives us very direct data that some things
>just can't be.
I see very little chance of that happening, considering how much continuity of
Jedi philosphy there is between the prequel era and the classic/EU era (ie,
virtually none).
>The title? I don't know... I like it I think - less campy then "Phantom
>Menace" anyway - but still with that "Flash Gordon" type of SF movie
>touch that sw has to have:)
Less campy??!! No way. ;-P Matter of personal preference there, of course. I
don't view SW as any sort of B-movie (which is I suppose what "AotC" is supposed
to hearken to)--if it were a B-movie, it would never have lasted this long
without MST3K treatment.
I suspect it may be like TPM, in that the first viewing will be incredibly cool
and exciting--and then rewatching it after I let the excitment cool will be
anti-climactic. (When I watch TPM now I realize just how awful the writing /
plot really is. But, the lightsabre battles still kick a$$!)
--Prophet Kristy
waxing philosophical
Ysanne
MindB_ender wrote:
>
> Ysanne wrote:
> >
> > khen...@duck.uoregon.edu wrote:
> > >
> > > MindB_ender put forth:
> > > >Kelly Grosskreutz wrote:
> > > >> "MindB_ender" <A.C.W.T...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL> wrote in message
> > > >> news:3BF5663B...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL...
> > >
> > > Spoilers for EpII trailers, look out below!
> > >
> > > W
> > > H
> > > E
> > > E
> > > E
> > > E
> > > E
> > > E
> > > E
> > > E
> > > E
> > > !
> > > !
> > > !
> > >
> > Yeah. That's like putting up a rule "No breathing" and then punishing
> > the ones who still do. Such a pointless rule is the ideal way to drive
> > people to the dark side.
>
> I'm not entirely sure its a pointless rule... if we look at the person
> we know that went against it, Anakin, you'd say that there is enough
> reason to uphold it.
But THAT'S just the point! Hadn't been there a rule obstructing Anakins
love, there would have been no reason to reject the Jedi and turn to the
dark side. He'd be happy and not think of hate at all.
Argh. Am I so ineffective in trying to bring my message across?
Ysanne
Crystal Cooper
> > As for celibacy, well it wasn't practical for establishing the New Jedi
> > Order, was it? Palpatine had effectively destroyed the Jedi Order and any
> > potential Force sensitives. (so we're told. The amount that cropped up meant
> > that Palpy did a half-assed job of it). Luke had to pass on what he had
> > learned, and we can only infer that meant his kids and Leia's kids.
If we take just the movie for the source though, the only remaining jedi
are Luke and Leia:
YODA: Strong is Vader. Mind what you have learned. Save you it can.
LUKE: I will. And I'll return. I promise.
YODA: (sighs) Told you, I did. Reckless is he. Now matters are worse.
BEN: That boy is our last hope.
YODA: (looks up) No. There is another.
So you'd hit a problem right away there, since the only jedi children
would be those of Luke and Leia, and they're related. Adds a new
perspective to Luke the hillbilly farmboy, but I'm not going there. :)
The new jedi order would have to give up right away.
Remember, it took Luke a while to find other force sensitives. Yoda and
Ben didn't seem to know of any, or Yoda would have said, "Expendable he
is. A lot of Jedi there are to defeat Vader" or something similar. So
it'd make no sense to tell Luke of those rules of celibacy or
restictions against loving non-jedi because it didn't occur to them that
it was possible to carry on the order in the old way, nor logical to
attempt to recreate it in a changed galaxy. Possibly they thought Luke
would have a better chance of striking out on his own, to start anew.
Either that, or they thought he had little chance of defeating Vader
anyway, although Yoda's line "save it you can", seems to put that theory
down.
> > But as for the point where Jedi can change from Light Side to Dark Side over
> > the weekend, I agree - its ridiculous. This is because it clashes with our
> > pre-conceived conceptions of what the Force and serving it actually means.
> > However, midichlorians clashed with our conceptions of the Force, and we
> > have to accpet those too now, don't we? The great out is, since Luke didn't
> > learn about them, hopefully they'll never be mentioned in the NJO :)
>
> The lack of Sith in post-RotJ faced the various authors with a problem
> of "Jedi-Suspense": half the movies is about Luke's battle with the Sith
> and his temptations of the Dark Side and so on... without the Sith there
> isn't much to do with his Jedi powers except being completely superiour
> to anyone else... which in general don't give us a very interesting
> story. This was countered by the various authors in various ways, Zahn
> for example pulled open a can of "forgotten Jedi" like Joruus or even
> Mara, others kept letting Luke swing from dark to light and again others
> dug up old Palps from the dead. New Jedi then again went through all
> that again as to not get boring by only having Luke have the fun and so
> on...
> ...personally I fear that midi's will certainly be brought up in the EU
> at a time (trust KJA to do so;))
Those force scanners in the YJK series, how did they work? I know they
were published pre-TPM, but if they work by detecting the force in a
person, it'd be reasonable to assume they detect midichlorians, wouldn't
it? It's been a long time since I read those books, and they're packed
in a box so I can't check this myself.
> > Alternatively, big bad Anakin Skywalker eventually renounced the Dark Side
> > too. So maybe it can happen...in extreme circumstances.
I was always of the opinion that this return to the light was something
like people who find Christ on their deathbeds. They get all the
benefits, but none of the problems of following the rules while they're
living. Vader was soon to be dead anyway, so it couldn't hurt to
renounce the dark.
-----
Crystal Cooper - coo...@iprimus.com.au
The three rules of the Librarians of Time and Space are:
1) Silence;
2) Books must be returned no later than the date last shown; and
3) Do not interfere with the nature of causality.
-----
Policrat'
> "MindB_ender" <A.C.W.T...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL> wrote in message
> news:3BF68A6C...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL...
>
>>> Not a new idea. Luke stated that he wasn't even sure if the Jedi were
>>> allowed to marry before his impending nuptials with Mara Jade.
>>
>> I'm aware off it not being a new idea, in fact we all could've known
>> from the old trilogy. It's not explicitly said - but it _is_ implied.
>> Just like it is implied that there are only white human males in the
>> Imperial Forces to make it look even more evil - as also racist, sexists
>> and speciesist.
>
> I disagree with it being implied. The only examples of Jedi we see in the
> Classic Trilogy are two old guys who are rather relcutant to recount the
> stories of their glory days.
All the same the very nature of the Jedi implies that, like real-world
military orders, they were celibate; OTOH, that sort of rule might not be as
well-enforced on the Rim as in the Core...
> I also put down the whole white supremesist Empire down to casting choices.
> You don't see much ethnic difference in the Rebel Alliance until TESB or
> ROTJ either.
Agreed...
>>> The whole Sith thing has been pretty effectively ret-conned as well. The
>>> Dark Horse series "Jedi vs. Sith" shows how the whole "Always two" rule
>>> came about approximately 2000 years before TPM. How the Sith race as ruled
>>> by a bunch of Dark Jedi evolved into the Sith Order with only two members
>>> has also been tracked.
>>
>> I do not fully agree with this, mostly because I do not recognize the
>> "track" or the whole idea of Dark Jedi (outside for example Mace) or a
>> species called Sith, however deeply this was embedded in EU lore.
>
> Why do you keeping mentioning Mace in connction with Dark Jedi? Am I missng
> something here?
?
But btw, the groundwork for the Sith we saw in JA3 and KotOR came *directly*
from Lucas...
>> The obvious EU-defence of "if you don't see it in the movies don't mean
>> it don't exist" is about the worst founded dogma in the history of
>> fandom. According to that reasoning we also have Pink Jedi, Light Sith,
>> Alien Imperials, Monsterously Smelly Blubber Beasts from Kwelzebob,
>> Space Bound Mutant Sheep with lasers coming from their 654 horns, purple
>> light-weight Hutts, 3 meter tall Jawa's, hairless ewoks, etc etc. All of
>> which never appeared in the movies of course.
>
> I think that EU defence is so people don't rant so much. Basically, we have
> to accept what is in the movies as cannon, however fans grate over Greedo
> shooting first (another character who's very confusing thanks to the EU).
No! We *don't* have to accept that!
> Basically, take what you like from the EU and accept it, or ignore what
> doesn't work. Kevin J. Anderson took that approach for the Essential
> Chronology, managing to iron out quite a few bugs in Eu continuity matching
> with the films. Doesn't mean I forgive him for Jedi High or Qui Xux though
> :)
;p
>> Ok, let me put it like this: If there were _any_ Dark Jedi roving
>> around, why would the Jedi council not bring up that suggestion when QG
>> suggested he just met a Sith - which should've been extinct for
>> millenia? Instead of bringing up this far more obvious choice - if there
>> were any dark Jedi that is - they grudgingly agree that it must be
>> Sith.... as there is no other choice. Dark or Rogue Jedi would be other,
>> far more obvious, choices - the fact that they didn't even contemplate
>> them makes it pretty sure there is no such thing. (for me that is).
>
> I highly doubt Qui-Gon would be unable to recognise a Dark Jedi if he
> encountered one (considering his first apprentice went to the Dark Side). He
> went to the Jedi Council simply because he didn't know what Maul was when he
> encountered him on Tatooine. He described his opponent as "well trained in
> the Jedi Arts", but he never implied that he may have actually been a fallen
> Jedi.
>
> Sith have been set up as the idealogical opposite of the Jedi. A Dark Jedi
> is a gray area, someone with all the training and some of the discipline of
> a Jedi Knight, but who has fallen into anger and dispair.
Yeah... note that Mace and Ki are *very* sceptical that it's a Sith...
clearly, they accept that Qwi-Gon fought *someone* on Tatooine... what they
*don't* accept is his insistance that it was a Sith...
OTOH, I have grave difficulties in accepting the Prequels as SW... but
that's something else...
=)
I always assumed that the Corellian Jedi (were there any except for the
Halcyons?) were a heterodox tradition (planetary 'sacred kings'?) who had
been rather imperfectly absorbed (or re-integrated) into the Jedi...
>>> Corellian Jedi rarely
>>> left the Corellian Sector, so chances are they did things differently.
>>
>> Well this I'd ave to counter with the fact that the Jedi temple - which
>> they entered as infants after which they received decades of training -
>> wasn't placed on Corellia or even in the Corellian Sector... so it would
>> be more obvious that Corellian Jedi rarely _enter_ the Corellian sector,
>> instead of vice versa. It could very well be that for example Kenobi or
>> Qui-Gon are corellians but even they themselves would probably not know
>> - or care. They are Jedi now, the galaxy is their playground.
>
> A good point but a simple counter to this is that Corellian Jedi never
> entered the temple in the first place. If the Jedi Order is a type of
> religion, then it is not impossible to hypothesise that there are different
> sects or orders within the religion that function in a different way, yet
> remain true to the goals of the Order overall. The White Current, Aing-Tii
> Monks and the Nightsisters are all examples of this (somewhat). Corellian
> Jedi, as established in the EU, sought peace and justice primarily in the
> Corellian System, whilst only venturing out into the greatst galaxy durin
> times of the direst need.
Aye... I'd always assumed that there was a big contrast between the
metropolitan Jedi in the Temple and the more 'rough-and-ready' Jedi on the
Rim...
>> Well this is far better argumentation - yes Neeja was older, probably
>> more realxed and all of that... but you'd say that a Jedi like Yoda
>> would certainly surpass that again - and even he stayed within the
>> celibat, just like Qui-Gon or Kenobi - even though you'd say that both
>> of them would definitely attrackt their share of female attention. (Yoda
>> probably too, but since I'm not of his species I can't comment on it.)
>
> Some accounts state that Yoda lived a primarily solitary life, alomst a
> hermit. Explains how he survived his self-imposed exile on Dagobah without
> going balmy.
Yeah...
>> But then again... not only Kenobi says this - Padme does so as well, and
>> she has all the reasons not to remind him of that. She even quotes from
>> common knowledge about Jedi not being allowed to love. Yes we will not
>> know till may 2002 - but for someone who at one moment claims that "if
>> its not in the movies don't mean it isn't so" you step very lightly over
>> things that _are_ in the movies.
>
> I'm not stepping lightly, I just don't have all the information yet. Padme
> is seeking clarification on a point of Jedi lore on which she is unsure of
> (at least from what I can gather), we know there are some misconceptions
> about Jedi amongst the wider population of the Galaxy. The most glaring is
> that people can't recognise a Jedi when they're wearing the uniform of one
> (which admittedly does look alot like Tatooine civilain clothing, but
> still...)
"You have made a commitment to the Jedi Order... a commitment that is not
easily broken..." - Obi-Wan
I rationalise the Jedi 'uniform' as being like the Jesuit 'uniform' -
anything goes, and things that make it easy to move among civilians are
preferred; just so long as it's black, or in the case of the Jedi, tan...
>> yes all true... which for me would indicate all the more that Luke isn't
>> actually a Jedi - at least not in the sense of the times before his
>> birth. And no, the purges were not based upon anakin's too much love -
>> it was based on the Sith hate for Jedi. I'm just pretty much convinced
>> that Anakin's swing to that side of the Sith was mostly based upon his
>> love... or his inability to have that love being a Jedi. Not being
>> allowed love he stepped over to the hate (a very closely related emotion
>> in many ways) of the Sith.
>
> I'd rather not step into a "Luke isn't a real Jedi/pilot/farmer/well
> adjusted person" debate. Its a touchy subject at the best of times. I feel
> also that its a bit of an oversimplification to say that when being barred
> from love, Anakin switched to hate; I suspect its going to be much more
> complicated than that. On the flip side, much of Ben Kenobi's story tellings
> to Luke in ANH can now be seen as over-simplifications of the truth, from a
> certain point of view of course.
=)
>> Luke was in many ways a joke of a Jedi, someone trained for a day or 2
>> to make sure he'll stand up long enough against Vader for the Anakin
>> inside Vader to react, with his love.
>
> Don't get me started on that first point. I don't think the plan was "Lets
> get Luke to draw out Anakin." Obi-Wan stated pretty firmly that Anakin was a
> lost casue, and only Darth Vader remained in his place. Yoda may have shared
> these feelings or disagreed with them, I don't know. However, there is
> enough evidence in the films alone to suggest that Luke was being shaped to
> overthrow the Emperor and Vader and break the Empire. For a good argument on
> this point, see a verbal belting Corran dishes to Luke in "I, Jedi."
Heh!
>> For such a "Jedi" to even attempt to create an order is in fact starting
>> all over again.
>
> Even if Luke had received ALL the Jedi training, he'd have to start over
> anyway. The Jedi were extinct, their infrastructure destroyed and their lore
> and history forgotten. There was no secret cache of Jedi artifacts or
> potential students waiting to be discovered.
I assume that Luke spent several weeks, or even months, on Dagobah, and he'd
obviously been trying to train himself between ANH and ESB...
>> He just got the basics, his new order will have to go through millenia
>> again before they reach the level of the old Jedi... and in the process
>> they might learn that celibacy is definitely a requirement... if the
>> "movie Luke" didn't just know that already, where the "Novel Luke"
>> just didn't - because that would exclude all kinds of nice plot twists
>> like him falling in love with Mara (who very conveniently also doesn't
>> need to comply with the rule "forever will it dominate your destiny"
>> even though she is not Luke or Anakin who are special because
>> they _can_ go from dark to light and the rest can't).
Except that the Dark *doesn't* "dominate their destint"... are we supposed
to think that's what happens to Luke after his brief fttDS aboard the DS2?
The whole point of what Luke does, IMHO, is that he shows that it's possible
to just *walk away*...
> Yoda's statement "no more training do you require" adds credence to the
> "Luke was just a weapon" theory. Al he had to do was kill Vader and the
> Emperor, probably because defeating them utterly would require that they be
> killed...a nice way of getting over the "not attacking" rule.
>
> As for celibacy, well it wasn't practical for establishing the New Jedi
> Order, was it? Palpatine had effectively destroyed the Jedi Order and any
> potential Force sensitives. (so we're told. The amount that cropped up meant
> that Palpy did a half-assed job of it). Luke had to pass on what he had
> learned, and we can only infer that meant his kids and Leia's kids. A few
> people, myself included, believe that whilst this would have been a slow
> process (Luke takes an apprentice, two at a stretch, trains them to
> Knighthood, then he takes another apprentice or two whilst his apprentice(s)
> take an apprentice or two...) it was the right way to do it. Kevin J.
> Anderson and the Jedi Highschool provided the quick and easy path, which
> caused a lot of problems later down the line.
Maybe...
> Additionally, celibacy wasn't working out for the Old Order either. Their
> numbers were in the decline.
>
> But as for the point where Jedi can change from Light Side to Dark Side over
> the weekend, I agree - its ridiculous. This is because it clashes with our
> pre-conceived conceptions of what the Force and serving it actually means.
> However, midichlorians clashed with our conceptions of the Force, and we
> have to accpet those too now, don't we? The great out is, since Luke didn't
> learn about them, hopefully they'll never be mentioned in the NJO :)
=)
> Alternatively, big bad Anakin Skywalker eventually renounced the Dark Side
> too. So maybe it can happen...in extreme circumstances.
IMHO, Anakin is able to do that because he sees Luke do it...
>> Right! There is just one difference: we don't have a Highlander 2
>> everybody just wants to forget about. We will have 6 movies which are
>> _definitely_ star wars, no questions asked. For example the Fett story
>> will have to be ignored... but there are many more of these things, like
>> I tried to point out above.... but there is a breakingpoint: the EU is
>> in many ways so interwoven and on its own that after EP3 is ready it
>> will have no other connection with the movies (which are undeniably
>> "Star Wars") other then some names that are the same. If we have a Fett
>> story we have to ignore, but this story is part of the base of another
>> story... doesn't this mean we have to ignore that story too? And will
>> this not eventually take down the whole house of cards?
>
> Well, we DO have the Holiday Special... But seriously, Boba Fett/Jaster
> Mareel has been set (rather loosely, but it works) as another "cover story",
> much like Jodo Kast. It does sort of work in the same way as the fact that
> the Galaxy had no idea who Darth Vader really was. The Galaxy "knows" that
> Boba Fett was once Jaster Mareel; a cover story to hide the real truth
> (prejudice against Clones may also be an issue, Boba Fett probably doesn't
> want to be a target of hate crimes...). Just like the Galaxy "knows" Darth
> Vder was a Jedi Knight who betrayed the Order and became the Emperor's
> champion...just like the galaxy "knows" Anakin Skywalker was a great pilot
> who was murdered after the Clone Wars.
Alternatively, since there's no EU account of how Jaster Mereel 'became'
Boba Fett, it's entirely possible that the original Fett did a "Dread Pirate
Roberts"...
>> This is what I meant with "here we go again" as TPM had this effect in
>> many ways already... you must've noticed that before TPM people thought
>> the novels and comics had all wisdom while afterwards this wisdom seems
>> to be laughable and at least far more debatable.
Myself, I'd rather throw out the Prequels, since they seem to go against the
spirit, aesthetic, storytelling style, and plot of the OT...
> Very true, but here another rule can be brought into play; the "levels of
> canocity" rule. I think the order is roughly: Films, Books, Comics and so
> on. Consequently, I can ignore the whole "Dark Empire II/Empire's
> End/Crimson Empire I & II" storylines simply because they aren't mentioned
> in the books.
>
> But I think they are mentioned in the Essential Chronology...bugger :)
With DE, I've always retconned it by assuming that we're not told
everything... that the DE 'Emperor' was just a clone of the Joruus C'baoth
type, created by Sedriss... *believing* itself to be the original Emperor in
a new body, but in fact with a mind assembled from a variety of sources...
and grown over several years due to the lack of ysalamiri... similarly, the
DE2 Emperor is *another* clone, grown far more quickly, and hence far more
unstable...
After all, doesn't Mara insist in VotF that the DE Emperor was not the
Emperor?
>> Much of the dislike of "real fans" for TPM was also based upon the fact
>> that it was like this, that their beliefs - based on the EU - weren't
>> reinforced but even just plainly denied. Some people are still hoping
>> for a glimpse of Thrawn or the Outbound Flight Project or even Jorus,
>> Nejaa or anyone like that - and I'm pretty sure these hopes will not be
>> really fulfilled. (of course if these people see even a slightly blue
>> human somewhere in background of the movies they'll claim it to be
>> Thrawn)
>
> These are probably the same fans who want Mara Jade to be played by Angie
> Everhart and Neeja Halcyon to be played by Michael Stackpole (actually, that
> last point isn't a bad idea). But bear in mind, the Star Wars Galaxy is a
> BIG place, lots of stuff can be going on behind the scenes and on the
> sidelines that isn't shown in the films. Maybe it didin't happen, but maybe
> it did. If its on the screen though, I have to accept it.
No... because there are too many unacceptable differences between the
Prequels and the OT...
>> Yes, I'm very much aware of that. I'm just very much intrested in where
>> the breaking-point is... and how much more of the EU will just be
>> plainly thrown out of the window by the time we have 3 more movies. Some
>> of the repairing that has been done after TPM was already stretching the
>> limits (like the explanations on why Dark Jedi could still exist). I
>> think people are taking continuiety too far. A good and fun story set in
>> the starwars universe denied from all sides is still a good and fun
>> story. Trying to make 1 big thing out of many such stories might be nice
>> brain exercize but it doesn't mean it makes more sense that way - often
>> only less - and it regulary denies the quality of many of these stories
>> in their own right.
>
> Just because a story isn't "canon" doesn't mean it can't be enjoyed.
> "Infinities" and "Tales" are prime examples of that. It comes down to a
> fan's personal choice, but ultimately if word comes direct from Lucasfilm
> what is and isn't canon, then those are the breaks.
Why?
>> I wonder if Lucas will start prohibitting the (re)priniting of
>> particulary conflicting stories after EP3 to keep making sense and a
>> sense of continuety for newer fans - who didn't jump in in the "dry
>> days" when we only had the (misunderstood) old trilogy and the EU, but
>> only at the new trilogy. These fans would be very confused reading many
>> of the things with in the EU which would just go straight against all
>> they've seen in the movies... in which you also have to take in account
>> that they won't read all of the EU in 1 go so they can make a fumbled
>> sense of it again - interested by the new movies they'll pick up one
>> novel and then ask themselves if this is even the same universe it's
>> fitted in.
>
> This is one argument as to the fates of certain characters in the NJO
> series; as to avoid confusion for people who are only starting out with TPM
> and moving from there. This is a stupid move for two reasons; firstly
> readers and viewers should be taken for granted as being intelligent enough
> to working things out for themselves. Secondly, this implies that the movies
> should be viewed as "I, II, III, IV, V, IV". I disagree. The emotional
> impact of TESB exposition would be completely lost.
But GL says that's how they should be seen... IMHO, it's one of the key
reasons why the Prequels *can't* be accepted as belonging to the same
continuity as the OT...
> But finally, thank you. Its been far too long since I've debated Star Wars
> with someone in such an enjoyable fashion.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brandon
Pol'
Policrat'
=)
>> Also it would imply that Ben's actions against Maul were enough
>> to push Kenobi over the edge.
>
> I'm of the opinion that yes, for a few moments in that final battle at the end
> of TPM, ObEwan *did* go to the Dark Side. He almost lost because of it....but
> then realized what he was doing and saved himself. (I won't go deeper into it
> than that, since that's incidental to the present discussion...) But MHO, of
> course.
I'd say it's still rather less that what Luke does in RotJ...
>>> 2. Obi-wan "holding him back" could mean several things.
>
> Very much so, absolutely.
Aye...
>> Everything points towards the fact that Jedi aren't
>> allowed to love, marriage or have relationships (and yes, that might
>> include family ones like with his mother.).
>
> It does, and I suppose it's GL's world....but you know, that *really* bothers
> me. Here the hopeless romantic in me rears its head...
>
> Anyway, let me fall back on referring to my personal religion. Catholic
> priests are not allowed to marry. They are celibate, end of story. The idea
> is that they give over their entire life to God--and that perhaps a wife
> and/or children may compete with God for the love of the priest. (I don't
> personally believe there's a limit to human love, but there will be practical
> considerations.) This doesn't mean they're not allowed to love: I'm sure most
> priests have great relationships with their families. I have an aunt who's a
> nun, and I don't know her really well, but I do know she's full of love, very
> close to her family (and that family is *big*).
>
> I don't think I'm getting to a point here, but that's my fault; Catholic
> doctrine warring with my inner romantic, and wondering what a priest would do
> if he happened upon a soul mate. I think I'm going to stop there.....this'll
> require some deep thought and I should stop thinking aloud. ;-)
Aye...
>> This theme is laid so thickly on the whole promotional aspect of the movie
>> that it becomes very hard to deny.
>
> But you know? This is for promotion. And, well, to be crass: sex sells
> movies....whereas it's pretty much not an issue in a SW movie.
=)
>> You might say that the trailer is too
>> short to base such comments on - but some of the things inside the
>> trailer are too explicit to be denied so lightly.
>
> True. But again, it's promotional. Clearly the strain of his wanting to have
> a relationship with Amidala warring with his apparent vows to the Jedi Order
> is a factor. But I must doubt that it's the only factor. ;-)
>
> And here's a thought: we're thinking of the Jedi in terms of the monastic
> poverty, chastity, obedience vows. Hey, since when was Qui-Gon obedient to
> the order?? They were exasperated with him....but they didn't kick him out.
Yeah... IMHO, Qwi-Gon is far more typical of the sort of Jedi who's actually
out on the mean streets of the GFFA...
>> Yes the New Order is different - but there are reasons why the old order
>> came up with it's rules: and the events with Anakin prove those reasons
>> even more.
>
> Well, if the rule isn't there to break, the stress of doing the forbidden
> thing isn't there ;-P It's obvious Luke hasn't set up his Jedi order this
> way...and has had no thought of doing so.
Aye...
>> The emotions coming with the territory are just too
>> conflicting to take place inside a Jedi without the effects they had on
>> Anakin. Even if Yoda didn't let Luke vow upon the celibacy, poverty and
>> obedience I'm sure Luke was informed of them as they are the basis of an
>> order...
>
> But they may not be the basis. Here we run the risk of being "present-minded"
> in talking about a completely totally different culture. (The same conflicts
> many of us may have when confronted with the idea that Amidala was the leader
> of her planet and was 14 years old. But Naboo is so different, and to them,
> this is a normal thing.)
Either that, or GL's just been stupid...
>> I know most monestaries and orders on earth have such vows and
>> I never even got close to them. The data didn't need to come from Yoda
>> or Ben even - it sounds like something everybody could've known.
>
> But not in a world where all that is known about the Jedi is rumours and
> myths. Which is Luke's world. Vader and Palpy did their suppressing well.
Maybe...
> --Prophet Kristy
> wow, good topic!
Aye...
Pol'
Policrat'
> Ysanne wrote:
>>
>> MindB_ender wrote:
>>
>> But considering that the Jedi Order was alive and well for many
>> generations, plus that Jedi aren't necessarily stupid enough to enforce
>> their own extinction, they just won't make such a celibacy rule. It is
>> contraproductive, and agains everything in human (and probably lots of
>> other species') nature, plus love is an emotion that helps the light
>> side. So why ban it?
>
> All agreed - which is is another reason to bring it up - it sounds like
> a contradiction. Where as the Sith are Hate - you'd expect the Jedi to
> be Love... or something of that nature. I can understand however that
> connected to love there is also the (quite big) chance of this love not
> being forever... which would create a Jedi with a broken heart, which I
> think you might say includes all kinds of emotions attributed to the
> dark side. Almost inherent to Love is of course something like jalousy
> too... I can understand the Jedi Order wanting to avoid getting a Jedi
> with any of those feelings on their hands, not in the last place because
> of their belief of the darkside being an irreversable path. Another
> reason being that it might be seen as a distraction of the matter at
> hand: serving the galaxy. A Jedi with a love and/or family might be a
> bit more reluctant to put his/her life on the line for any of that.
Perhaps...
>> What points at it? Why do you think that Anakin's Jedi-ness is the
>> problem and not e.g. that Queens of Naboo aren't allowed to have a
>> relationship (they seem to get elected, so anything that could lead to a
>> Queen trying to pass on her power by inheritance should be avoided), or
>> something else like in the myriad of stories that aren't about Jedi and
>> still include a man and a woman who are not allowed a relationship.
>
> Well, the most direct hint is the name of the trailer "Forbidden Love"
> or the text on the posters and banners "A Jedi shall not know Anger -
> Nor Hatred - Nor Love." There is few that has ever been transsponded
> this explicitly in Star Wars before, besides perhaps that the Empire
> struck back at Hoth. Yes there is a miriad of stories on this subject -
> but only a few I think where the love within one of the characters can
> actually affect something with the power of the force... especially the
> dark side.
Hmm...
>> So how idiotic would it be of the Jedi if they forbade _the_ emotion
>> that makes people do good things? Love in itself doesn't produce hate
>> and anger, but quite the opposite. Not being allowed to love, now _that_
>> does. And as love is a very fundamental thing, a no-love-rule in the
>> order would mean that a great part of the Jedi would have to struggle
>> with dark feelings -- just because the Jedi Order prohibits the light
>> emotions. Very contraproductive. Not Jedi-like. A pointless, destructive
>> chore.
>
> I think the Jedi are not supposed to be "light" as opposed to the "dark"
> of the Sith - they might very well need to be neutral in everything,
> including their emotions. Their meditations and such might indicate as
> such - perhaps they need to be "empty"? It would make them a lot more
> stabile, as emotions are usually volatile and changing... in which a
> "light" emotion can easily jump to a "dark" one in a flash - and back
> again. In this case it wouldn't be seen as pointless or destructive - it
> would seem balanced and at rest.
Interesting idea... not that that's what Qwi-Gon does, though...
>> I do think Jedi in general are allowed to love, and some other factor is
>> in the way of Padme's and Anakin's love.
>
> I don't think so anymore... I used to think that love was possible for
> Jedi and that as such perhaps it would've been Kenobi who got in the way
> of Anakin getting to Padme - lightly Lancelot/Arthur style... But the
> hint these trailers have given would mean that Kenobi would never do
> such a thing - not because he wouldn't want to, but because he's a
> Jedi... who doesn't love. I think that Anakin being a Jedi will have
> more reason to obstruct then Padme being a Queen - not in the last place
> because I strongly believe that there is no other way to leave the Jedi
> Order except by death.
Perhaps... Obi-Wan says that Anakin has "made acommitment to the Jedi
order... acommitment not easily broken"... Catholic priests are,
technically, allowed to marry, but IIRC, they may not afterwards hold a
benefice, and may only celebrate Mass in private, in their own homes...
perhaps there is something similar in the way the Jedi do it...
Pol'
Policrat'
> Ysanne wrote:
Um... no...
Where on earth did either of you get those ideas from?!
I'm sorry, I have to disagree with y'all here... the idea of celibacy is
found in the NT, presented by St Paul as the 'best' way for a Christian to
live; and while there have always been alternatives - or rather, people
falling short of the highest ideal to greater or lesser degrees, with a
greater or lesser degree of formal or informal toleration - so it has
remained; the idea that since priests are an elite with a sacral function,
they ought to uphold the purest ideal, was only finally settled on c. 1100
by Gregory VII - partly because the office of parish priest was becoming in
some areas little more than a hereditary sinecure - but it had always been
there, and the Gregorian Reform simply removed the formal context for the
practice, which continued, in fact, to be widespread...
This provides a rather useful comparrison with the Jedi, in fact... the Code
stresses celibacy, but among the Jedi on the Rim, marriage is a commonplace,
and Jedi might frequently train their own sons and daughters as Jedi...
>> Anyway, why compare the Jedi to a religious order? IMO, they're not.
>> They are more like a martial arts school for the very gifted, training
>> Force-sensitive people to think clearly despite their emotions, and
>> don't do harm unintentionally.
>
> Various people like Tarkin, Solo and Tagge inside the GFFA seem to see
> it as a religion (from memory: "...your sad devotion to that ancient
> religion..." - tagge "...i find your lack of faith disturbing..." -
> vader (note "faith") "...hokey religions and ancient weapons..." -
> han...). The rebels seem to believe in the same religion... where a Jedi
> would be a priest or monk I gather and the rebels just the lay-men. That
> this religion comes with an infinite "deus ex machina" is just the
> fantasy aspect of star wars i guess:)
Aye... I always took the Jedi to be a military order, like the Templars...
>>> And here's a thought: we're thinking of the Jedi in terms of the monastic
>>> poverty, chastity, obedience vows. Hey, since when was Qui-Gon obedient to
>>> the order?? They were exasperated with him....but they didn't kick him out.
>>
>> Nor does poverty seem to be enforced - just look at the Jedi Council's
>> room.
>
> Look at the vatican, or any other major temple complex... the Jedi
> themselves wouldn't own more then perhaps just their sabre... and this
> would fall to the Order again in case of death. Their "monk-like" robes
> would indeed point out poverty as they don't look to be very elaborate.
> The orderitself could then of course be far more wealthier.
What about all the 'James Bond' gadgets in their robes...?-)
>>>> Yes the New Order is different - but there are reasons why the old order
>>>> came up with it's rules: and the events with Anakin prove those reasons
>>>> even more.
>>>
>>> Well, if the rule isn't there to break, the stress of doing the forbidden
>>> thing isn't there ;-P It's obvious Luke hasn't set up his Jedi order this
>>> way...and has had no thought of doing so.
>>
>> Yeah. That's like putting up a rule "No breathing" and then punishing
>> the ones who still do. Such a pointless rule is the ideal way to drive
>> people to the dark side.
>
> I'm not entirely sure its a pointless rule... if we look at the person
> we know that went against it, Anakin, you'd say that there is enough
> reason to uphold it.
=)
Pol'
MindB_ender
>
> MindB_ender put forth:
> >khen...@duck.uoregon.edu wrote:
> >> Ysanne put forth:
> >> >MindB_ender wrote:
> >>
> >> EpII Trailer spoilers getting milder, but still there. (we're largely
> >> speculating!)
> >>
> >> E
> >> U
> >> G
> >> O
> >> R
> >>
> >> A
> >> T
> >> N
> >> E
> >> R
> >>
> >prohibit a Jedi to love would make this even a worse case as these
> >reasons would count doubly. Also with such a small gene pool (10,000 -
> >and not all of the same species) interbreeding might have some very
> >averse effects, and probably not only biological - but also mentally.
>
> Well, I present it as an alternative to the total prohibition. Do you want a
> small gene pool or none at all? ;-) Hey, the Jedi Council may be dense, but
> they're not *that* stupid.
Well, it might be known that a very powerful structure like the roman
catholic church decided mainly not to allow procreation to get rid of
family structures inflicting on those of the larger structure.
> Though, as another student in my lab today commented, there may be Jedi just
> "springing up" all over the galaxy. We'd have to know the rate of
> "spontanetous" Jedi vs. genetic ones, in order to judge the various theories.
> Though, I think the implication is that Jedi powers are mainly inherited.
> Qui-Gon asks who Anakin's father is; not to mention the whole Skywalker clan.
>
> > It
> >does bring up the possibility of "breeding" (super-)Jedi.. though that
> >could be done in testtubes too of course. But I guess we get too close
> >to the "Dune" view on things in that case:)
>
> Now That could get interesting!! Though I can easily see that sort of
> experiment backfiring on the Council. (as is becoming obvious, I don't have a
> very high opinion of them. ;-)
Heheheheh, right... I'm even convinced that this aspect of the Jedi
council (the unfeeling powermongers) will be abused especially by
Palpatine to create opposition towards the Jedi order. I've always seen
them very much part of the corruption and tiredness of the Old Republic.
> >> Like I said before....I think it's more in the letting emotions control you,
> >> rather than the feeling of emotions themselves.
> >
> >I think so too, by taking out these feelings the become more balanced,
> >neutral... perhaps in some search of a kind of Nirvana? It could be that
> >what Kenobi and Yoda eventually do - disappearing - is a direct result
> >of this... their being so neutral and empty that they are absorbed whole
> >into the Force - a physical form of reaching that kind of Nirvana.
>
> You keep changing your argument. ;-P yeah, I'm with that. But it goes against
> the idea of totally forbidding love (and, by implication, other emotions).
> First, there's Ysanne's very good point about them losing their driving force
> without said emotion. And then there's my opinion that you can't just *not*
> love. Sorry, not human.
Well besides them not all being human the driving forces could very well
be those of duty, responsibility, obedience to the force etc. Kenobi was
hurt by Alderaan exploding, such events influence Jedi in many more ways
then a non-Jedi.... which makes the reasoning sound for them to keeps
such things from happening for their own good too. You do not need to
love to do good, hell: you do not even conciously need to be doing good,
if the good stuff is just a side effect of your actions for your own
good.
> >> Get the feeling GL hasn't thought about this nearly as hard as we have? ;-)
> >
> >I get the feeling he has in fact.
>
> But then why aren't we getting his vision? He's either got a very messed-up
> system....or we're just not getting his meaning. Which, in a saga this big,
> ends up meaning very sloppy storytelling.
No, it means that the stuff he does put in goes over the head of the
audience. Much of the sci-fi viewers are fact-nerds. They do not get the
poetry that's part of storytelling - where you do not say everything
explicitly but where you only make implications at different levels. The
easy implications are picked up by most, others aren't as
straight-forward and will be overlooked by many... first all the
fact-nerds who like the trek way of saying, explaining everything shown.
SW is mostly a kind of fairytale fantasy with many double layers and
very few explicit explanations - only when obviously half of the
audience is gone off-track already. In literature this is far more
common then in movies and mostly such layers are indicated by themes or
icons within the story - but anything but direct. The fact that the
empire only employs white male humans throughout the old trilogy is such
a theme: it's more subtle then stating in some kind of narrative "The
Empire are male chauvinst Nazi's" which would require all kinds of
fitting in again.
> But there's always the chance that maybe GL's taken a page from Mike Stackpole's
> book and is being devious on us. The real test will be in watching EpII!
hmmm... i doubt that lucas has reada single page of EU. I always got the
idea that he rates the novels, cartoons etc just as high as "jar jar
lollipops" or "battledroid ice". It's merchendizing for a different
target audience and its only goal or importance to _his_ star wars is
that it advertizes, brings in some extra cash and it keeps the more
irritating and wanting types of fans happy.
MindB_ender
heheh, relax relax ;) Yes I know that's why Anakin went over the
brink... or at least that looks like it - just as I've always thought
the Jedi Council did more bad then good in TPM when facing Anakin first
time. But this is an ages old order - they are bound to have experience
in these things dating back ages too. There are more reasons then just
the obvious ones.
As example think of this: Padme is directly connected to Naboo - a
political force within the senate and the galaxy. Anakin is supposed to
be neutral among these forces, being a Jedi. His impartial position
would be directly infringed upon by marrying or even having a relation
with Padme - as he'd get himself connected to Naboo as well... making
his impartial position as mobile general-ambassador, judge, jury etc.
blemished in all non-Naboo eyes for sure. In this example the reason not
to allow such a union is pretty obvious but even if she was just a
farmgirl these conflicts of interests would jump up, just less harshly.
MindB_ender
yes, all true again... but still christ is called rabbi in his own time
and place - and rabbi's are always married, even in those days. (or
widdowed) Paul wouldn't know because he lived about a generation or 2
later then christ and only knew everything via the grapevine... which is
the problem with the whole NT in fact - besides editting and rewriting
that was done in the 2 millenia since to accomodate new dogma's and
ideas of the church.
The reasons for celibacy were, besides those you named already, mostly
economical, political (and many evil voices say hetrophobical or even
bluntly woman-hating pope(s)). By not allowing priests to have families
their power and posessions always flowed back into the church. That its
still widespread was proved last summer with the scandal of many african
nuns getting raped and impregnated by their fellow church priests who's
defence was that that was their only way of not getting aids etc.
> This provides a rather useful comparrison with the Jedi, in fact... the Code
> stresses celibacy, but among the Jedi on the Rim, marriage is a commonplace,
> and Jedi might frequently train their own sons and daughters as Jedi...
Problem being that the movies provide completely no evidence for he
existace of rinkin Jedi, with all 10,000 Jedi all safely within the
confines of a single order - based in a single temple etc. Just like I
doubt there is such thing as the "corellian jedi" - I doubt there are
any others either. One thing not to forget is that the social control
within a society of mind/emotionreaders is very high.
> >> Anyway, why compare the Jedi to a religious order? IMO, they're not.
> >> They are more like a martial arts school for the very gifted, training
> >> Force-sensitive people to think clearly despite their emotions, and
> >> don't do harm unintentionally.
> >
> > Various people like Tarkin, Solo and Tagge inside the GFFA seem to see
> > it as a religion (from memory: "...your sad devotion to that ancient
> > religion..." - tagge "...i find your lack of faith disturbing..." -
> > vader (note "faith") "...hokey religions and ancient weapons..." -
> > han...). The rebels seem to believe in the same religion... where a Jedi
> > would be a priest or monk I gather and the rebels just the lay-men. That
> > this religion comes with an infinite "deus ex machina" is just the
> > fantasy aspect of star wars i guess:)
>
> Aye... I always took the Jedi to be a military order, like the Templars...
Same here, the Knight Templar or one of the various Eastern warriour
monk sects. The system is pretty common and the fact that the templars
got so sucsesfull that the pope and the king of france felt threatened
also points to how the jedi met their demise
> >>> And here's a thought: we're thinking of the Jedi in terms of the monastic
> >>> poverty, chastity, obedience vows. Hey, since when was Qui-Gon obedient to
> >>> the order?? They were exasperated with him....but they didn't kick him out.
> >>
> >> Nor does poverty seem to be enforced - just look at the Jedi Council's
> >> room.
> >
> > Look at the vatican, or any other major temple complex... the Jedi
> > themselves wouldn't own more then perhaps just their sabre... and this
> > would fall to the Order again in case of death. Their "monk-like" robes
> > would indeed point out poverty as they don't look to be very elaborate.
> > The orderitself could then of course be far more wealthier.
>
> What about all the 'James Bond' gadgets in their robes...?-)
Not even James Bond owns those gadgets.. they're owned by the secret
service. The pope might walk around in gold and brocate, live in huge
palaces and drive in specially built cars etc... non of it is owned by
himself.
MindB_ender
all way to far fetched compared to the relative progress of sw-history.
If the falcon took a trip of 3 lightyears at just below light they might
have really only have passed a week or even a day inside the falcon...
it's the near 4 years that would've progressed outside the falcon that
counts: they would've arrived at bespin after the second deathstar had
been destroyed. The fact that within half a galactic standard year (so
not falcon-onboard-time) the falcon flew sublight from hoth to anoat and
from anoat to bespin and got in time to get solo frosted and defrosted
and to get to endor means that even with relativity this is not to be
countered - as apparently all that physics don't work in star wars.
> > How do we also know that it didn't take months or years or even weeks is
> > story-progression: if they took such stretches of time in the falcon,
> > Han and Leia wouldn't be at the unstabile start of their relationship at
> > cloudcity... they'd been banging eachother for weeks already just to
> > pass the time. Hell if it had taken years the Solo twins would've met
> > Lando first time there and then... on their own feet >:)
>
> So it might have just taken hours aboard the Falcon...
yes, as it took hours on dagobah.
> > Not really, distance between dagobah and bespin would be considerably
> > bigger then the distance between Anoat and Bespin. But since we saw the
> > falcon already fly from one system (Hoth) to another (Anoat) at
> > sublight, chased by the empire all the way
>
> Were they? What about that whole floating away with the trash thing?
ok... Hoth System is where they started... they got chased to Anoat
System while Luke got his training. In the Anoat System they floated
away with the trash and started making their way to the Bespin System.
All these Systems are named as Systems at these points in time/place,
their suns are not highly visible from one to another so they are likely
to be as seperate as the Sun-System is from the Alpha Centauri System.
The whole trip they did "sub-light", not via hyperspace, and from Hoth
to Anoat they were chased by TIE Fighters which are not equiped with
hyperdrives. Apparently in the star wars universe our physics don't work
and apparently they can travel lightyears at sublight within hours -
hours measured outside the ship.
> > and not taking much longer
> > then lets say a day (seen story progress... if relativity came into
> > play... the empire could've cut the falcon off easily by using
> > hyperdrives. In any case I guess it's proven they didn't take years).
>
> Nope, it's not. The Empire arrives on Bespin before the Falcon does, at any
> rate. (Presumably being called in by Fett...)
Yes, because they used hyperdives and took a shortcut via hyperspace,
which the falcon couldn't do apparently. what i was commenting upon is
that the Empire didn't use the same trick to cut off the Falcon in the
chase from Hoth to Anoat.
> > This cannot be in our universe or physics...
>
> Yes, it can. Just not with our propulsion technologies.
so how do you explain going many times faster then light at "sublight"?
> > I'd suggest you watch ESB again - it only runs parallel with the chase:
> > during falcon chase luke lands, meets and gets trained... inc his view
> > of the future.... then there is a sequence of 3 scenes:
> > - falcon drops off isd and goes from anoat to bespin
> > - luke takes off to Bespin as well
> > - falcon in the clouds of bespin
> >
> > Taking into account that Lucas is no Tarantino and there isn't a
> > flashback in the movies even, these scenes, like all in starwars, are
> > sequencial - or take place at the same time. It almost seems as Lucas
> > holds to the old renaissance theatre ideas of unity of time, location
> > and character in a way.
>
> Or he didn't really think it out. Or the Falcon had a backup hyperdrive (WEG -
> ick). Or he thought it would be too tricky to show...
Or he didn't care - as its _his_ universe, where _his_ rules of physics
work. In his universe there is sound in space, starfighters behave as
atmospheric, starships as whales or submarines... and there is some kind
of all powerful Force too. Everything on screen actually points to a
universe with different rules of physics then our own universe -
probably one where there is somekind of "medium" in space (the
force?)... a medium which explains a lot of what we see and hear in that
space...
> I'm sure this argument has been done to death in different ways and different
> places... still, it's fun!
I know, been there before as well. What does irritate me is that most
viewers have a wong idea of the exact sequence of events within ESB -
even those you'd expect to have seen it for many many times. The
question of time doesn't go about the whole trip from Anoat to Bespin...
as Luke already leaves for Bespin the moment the Falcon does too. The
whole question of time is about the chase from Hoth to Anoat... during
which alone Luke gets his training.... cut between scenes of that chase.
His training effectively stops when the falcon starts floating away from
that ISD... with the rest of the garbage.
Since we have two parralel sets of events, Luke's training and the
Falcon Chase, happening at the same time with lots of scenes from both
its far easier to time. And that time is hardly more then a day or 2.
Ysanne
> > > Look at the vatican, or any other major temple complex... the Jedi
> > > themselves wouldn't own more then perhaps just their sabre... and this
> > > would fall to the Order again in case of death. Their "monk-like" robes
> > > would indeed point out poverty as they don't look to be very elaborate.
> > > The orderitself could then of course be far more wealthier.
> >
> > What about all the 'James Bond' gadgets in their robes...?-)
>
> Not even James Bond owns those gadgets.. they're owned by the secret
> service. The pope might walk around in gold and brocate, live in huge
> palaces and drive in specially built cars etc... non of it is owned by
> himself.
Which is a very lame workaround indeed.
I think it would be too much hypocrisy if the Jedi _themselves_ were
poor, but the Order were rich and equipped them with all kinds of
expensive things. The point of poverty is not that your expensive things
technically don't belong you, but to experience life without unnecessary
material things. If the Jedi uphold this non-materialistic ideal, they
wouldn't have a "we have riches but legally, they belong to the order"
construction.
Ysanne
MindB_ender
well the various religious orders around the earth proof that indeed it
often works like that... and actually, because i have some family
contacts in there, i can tell you that the average monk or nun inside
the very rich catholic church is very poor indeed. The riches can be
explained by the high costs of the operations the Jedi go upon.... it
might even be that all of it is not even owned by the Jedi Order but on
"lend" from the Galactic Senate/Republic to make sure they are able to
do their stuff. An example would be the republic cruiser in TPM. Also,
w/o the Order or the republic Kenobi and Yoda both showed very
empoverished states.
Policrat'
A few thoughts... firstly, marriage need not preclude celibacy; secondly,
there might be a distinction between a conventional rabbi and a carpenter
from Nazareth 'speaking with authority'; thirdly, Paul (and through him,
Luke) was clearly in direct contact with the Apostles; fourthly, the textual
transmission of the Bible (not to mention apocryphal books) is *so* diverse
from such an early period that the idea that I sincerely doubt the
possibility that anyone would be able to edit every surviving fragment of
Tatian's Diatasseron and the Hexapla, not to mention every throwaway
reference in every copy of the work of the second-century apologists...
> The reasons for celibacy were, besides those you named already, mostly
> economical, political (and many evil voices say hetrophobical or even
> bluntly woman-hating pope(s)). By not allowing priests to have families
> their power and posessions always flowed back into the church. That its
> still widespread was proved last summer with the scandal of many african
> nuns getting raped and impregnated by their fellow church priests who's
> defence was that that was their only way of not getting aids etc.
Sin, sadly, does happen. But I don't think this is the appropriate place for
theological dialectic...
I do feel that you're looking at this from a very particular position... the
alienation of church property is, after all, the diversion of what has been
given *to the church* to secular ends (after all, the idea of holding
property in common seems to have been considered by many in the First
Century to extend to the entire community of believers); there was a sense
that married priests led to hereditary priests and ultimately to many
priests becoming ill-educated sinecurists; and above all, there is the
particular moral imperative towards celibacy, which, in spite of your view
of the evidence, and the fact that it has never been unanimously agreed on
or absolutely enforced, existed in the Church from the beginning...
In short, the ultimate reason for clerical celibacy is a moral imperative
which, while humanity cannot be expected to cleave perfectly to it, has
nevertheless been established since the first century AD...
>> This provides a rather useful comparrison with the Jedi, in fact... the Code
>> stresses celibacy, but among the Jedi on the Rim, marriage is a commonplace,
>> and Jedi might frequently train their own sons and daughters as Jedi...
>
> Problem being that the movies provide completely no evidence for he
> existace of rinkin Jedi, with all 10,000 Jedi all safely within the
> confines of a single order - based in a single temple etc. Just like I
> doubt there is such thing as the "corellian jedi" - I doubt there are
> any others either. One thing not to forget is that the social control
> within a society of mind/emotionreaders is very high.
The GFFA is a big place... I *cannot* really accept *such* a tight
control... clearly, the 'metropolitan' Jedi have to deal with such rogues
Qwi-Gon Jinn and Count Dooku... while certainly, the collapse of the Order
might cause an abandonment of the tenets of the Code among survivors like
Adalric Brandl and Ranik Solusar, I would prefer to see a degree of human
falability at an earlier stage...
>>>> Anyway, why compare the Jedi to a religious order? IMO, they're not.
>>>> They are more like a martial arts school for the very gifted, training
>>>> Force-sensitive people to think clearly despite their emotions, and
>>>> don't do harm unintentionally.
>>>
>>> Various people like Tarkin, Solo and Tagge inside the GFFA seem to see
>>> it as a religion (from memory: "...your sad devotion to that ancient
>>> religion..." - tagge "...i find your lack of faith disturbing..." -
>>> vader (note "faith") "...hokey religions and ancient weapons..." -
>>> han...). The rebels seem to believe in the same religion... where a Jedi
>>> would be a priest or monk I gather and the rebels just the lay-men. That
>>> this religion comes with an infinite "deus ex machina" is just the
>>> fantasy aspect of star wars i guess:)
>>
>> Aye... I always took the Jedi to be a military order, like the Templars...
>
> Same here, the Knight Templar or one of the various Eastern warriour
> monk sects. The system is pretty common and the fact that the templars
> got so sucsesfull that the pope and the king of france felt threatened
> also points to how the jedi met their demise
Agreed... though again, I'd disagree with the finer points of your analysis
=)
>>>>> And here's a thought: we're thinking of the Jedi in terms of the monastic
>>>>> poverty, chastity, obedience vows. Hey, since when was Qui-Gon obedient
>>>>> to the order?? They were exasperated with him....but they didn't kick him
>>>>> out.
>>>>
>>>> Nor does poverty seem to be enforced - just look at the Jedi Council's
>>>> room.
>>>
>>> Look at the vatican, or any other major temple complex... the Jedi
>>> themselves wouldn't own more then perhaps just their sabre... and this
>>> would fall to the Order again in case of death. Their "monk-like" robes
>>> would indeed point out poverty as they don't look to be very elaborate.
>>> The orderitself could then of course be far more wealthier.
>>
>> What about all the 'James Bond' gadgets in their robes...?-)
>
> Not even James Bond owns those gadgets.. they're owned by the secret
> service. The pope might walk around in gold and brocate, live in huge
> palaces and drive in specially built cars etc... non of it is owned by
> himself.
Point... but it's a fine line, especially for a Jedi watchman on the Outer
Rim, who recieved his 'saber and his commission from his father...
Pol'
Policrat'
> Kristy Henscheid wrote:
It *might* be, certainly... =)
>> Though, as another student in my lab today commented, there may be Jedi just
>> "springing up" all over the galaxy. We'd have to know the rate of
>> "spontanetous" Jedi vs. genetic ones, in order to judge the various theories.
>> Though, I think the implication is that Jedi powers are mainly inherited.
>> Qui-Gon asks who Anakin's father is; not to mention the whole Skywalker clan.
>>
>>> It does bring up the possibility of "breeding" (super-)Jedi.. though that
>>> could be done in testtubes too of course. But I guess we get too close
>>> to the "Dune" view on things in that case:)
>>
>> Now That could get interesting!! Though I can easily see that sort of
>> experiment backfiring on the Council. (as is becoming obvious, I don't have
>> a very high opinion of them. ;-)
>
> Heheheheh, right... I'm even convinced that this aspect of the Jedi
> council (the unfeeling powermongers) will be abused especially by
> Palpatine to create opposition towards the Jedi order. I've always seen
> them very much part of the corruption and tiredness of the Old Republic.
Shame that GL doesn't agree... I feel they should have been more
recognizably human...
>>>> Like I said before....I think it's more in the letting emotions control
>>>> you, rather than the feeling of emotions themselves.
>>>
>>> I think so too, by taking out these feelings the become more balanced,
>>> neutral... perhaps in some search of a kind of Nirvana? It could be that
>>> what Kenobi and Yoda eventually do - disappearing - is a direct result
>>> of this... their being so neutral and empty that they are absorbed whole
>>> into the Force - a physical form of reaching that kind of Nirvana.
>>
>> You keep changing your argument. ;-P yeah, I'm with that. But it goes
>> against the idea of totally forbidding love (and, by implication, other
>> emotions). First, there's Ysanne's very good point about them losing their
>> driving force without said emotion. And then there's my opinion that you
>> can't just *not* love. Sorry, not human.
>
> Well besides them not all being human the driving forces could very well
> be those of duty, responsibility, obedience to the force etc. Kenobi was
> hurt by Alderaan exploding, such events influence Jedi in many more ways
> then a non-Jedi.... which makes the reasoning sound for them to keeps
> such things from happening for their own good too. You do not need to
> love to do good, hell: you do not even conciously need to be doing good,
> if the good stuff is just a side effect of your actions for your own
> good.
Except that the Jedi style themselves as 'guardians of peace and justice'...
>>>> Get the feeling GL hasn't thought about this nearly as hard as we have? ;-)
>>>
>>> I get the feeling he has in fact.
>>
>> But then why aren't we getting his vision? He's either got a very messed-up
>> system....or we're just not getting his meaning. Which, in a saga this big,
>> ends up meaning very sloppy storytelling.
>
> No, it means that the stuff he does put in goes over the head of the
> audience. Much of the sci-fi viewers are fact-nerds. They do not get the
> poetry that's part of storytelling - where you do not say everything
> explicitly but where you only make implications at different levels. The
> easy implications are picked up by most, others aren't as
> straight-forward and will be overlooked by many... first all the
> fact-nerds who like the trek way of saying, explaining everything shown.
> SW is mostly a kind of fairytale fantasy with many double layers and
> very few explicit explanations - only when obviously half of the
> audience is gone off-track already. In literature this is far more
> common then in movies and mostly such layers are indicated by themes or
> icons within the story - but anything but direct. The fact that the
> empire only employs white male humans throughout the old trilogy is such
> a theme: it's more subtle then stating in some kind of narrative "The
> Empire are male chauvinst Nazi's" which would require all kinds of
> fitting in again.
OTOH, George hasn't been as effective as he might have been... he's tried to
introduce unworkable systems into the Prequels, IMHO...
>> But there's always the chance that maybe GL's taken a page from Mike
>> Stackpole's book and is being devious on us. The real test will be in
>> watching EpII!
>
> hmmm... i doubt that lucas has reada single page of EU. I always got the
> idea that he rates the novels, cartoons etc just as high as "jar jar
> lollipops" or "battledroid ice". It's merchendizing for a different
> target audience and its only goal or importance to _his_ star wars is
> that it advertizes, brings in some extra cash and it keeps the more
> irritating and wanting types of fans happy.
Actually, he has read Zahn (and mumbled some polite things) and DE (which he
rather liked)...
Pol'
Petra Genske
> icons within the story - but anything but direct. The fact that the
> empire only employs white male humans throughout the old trilogy is
such
> a theme: it's more subtle then stating in some kind of narrative "The
> Empire are male chauvinst Nazi's" which would require all kinds of
> fitting in again.
I wouldn't call it subtle. The Imperial uniform clearly was designed
with a Nazi uniform in mind, plus a Japanese style hat. Even people who
don't know much about history will notice, as these uniforms are often
seen in movies. So I would say GL made very clear who are the bad guys,
and not by subtle means.
Besides, throughout the movies the Rebels are mainly male and white,
too. Granted, they have female leaders (political leaders, not
military), but that's it. Only in ROTJ we see a few non-humans among
them, and I guess that's only because GL got aware of the political
correctness thing.
And having a military force only consisting of white men doesn't
necesssary imply that you want to present them as bad and nazi-like. It
might just the way you have experienced it. For example, most Germans
won't probably notice anything special about soldiers being exclusively
white men, because the German military didn't allow women in their ranks
for a long time (it changed at the beginning of this year), and the
majority of Germans are white.
The idea of female soldiers is rather new in most countries, and isn't
taken for granted yet. So maybe it wasn't a consious decision by GL to
use male soldiers, but something that seemed natural to him (that was
back in 1977). And maybe there were no black people or other ethnic
groups in his first movies because he wanted the humans in the GFFA to
be a rather homogen group, and not so earthlike.
Ciao, Petra
--
Petra Genske
gen...@itt.uni-stuttgart.de
http://www.xwpilots.de
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life.
Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out
death in judgement."
Gandalf - 'The Lord of the Rings'
MindB_ender
>
> MindB_ender wrote:
>
> > icons within the story - but anything but direct. The fact that the
> > empire only employs white male humans throughout the old trilogy is
> such
> > a theme: it's more subtle then stating in some kind of narrative "The
> > Empire are male chauvinst Nazi's" which would require all kinds of
> > fitting in again.
>
> I wouldn't call it subtle. The Imperial uniform clearly was designed
> with a Nazi uniform in mind, plus a Japanese style hat. Even people who
> don't know much about history will notice, as these uniforms are often
> seen in movies. So I would say GL made very clear who are the bad guys,
> and not by subtle means.
true, true, but as I said: it has several levels, not just one. The
uniforms are pretty straight-forward, the fact that the empire has
_just_ male white humans still hasn't registered with most of the fans
who've been looking at it for decades... this kinda points out to me
it's not as obvious as Lucas thought.
> Besides, throughout the movies the Rebels are mainly male and white,
> too. Granted, they have female leaders (political leaders, not
> military), but that's it. Only in ROTJ we see a few non-humans among
> them, and I guess that's only because GL got aware of the political
> correctness thing.
In ESB we got the asian Wes Janson and various other non-white rebels,
before that we got some kind of Calamari in the SWHS Fett-cartoon, women
are also quite common in rebel forces (leia prime example, mon
mothma...). In RotJ you get the Sullustians, the Calamari etc. And
that's besides the fact that Chewie has been on the side of the
rebellion since ANH. In the empire from ANH to RotJ we see _just_ male
white humans, mostly with brit accents to boot. The difference was by
choice, or there'd be women or at least coloured humans in the empire
too in at least ESB and aliens by the time of RotJ... the fact that this
was done by choice points out that it has a reason. I think it had more
to do with budget then political correctness in fact, in ANH it
would've been too expensive to add convincing alien rebels and they were
shooting in the UK at the time. The moment the budget restraints were
dropped some more - aliens, females and non-white humans were added to
the rebellion and not to the empire.
> And having a military force only consisting of white men doesn't
> necesssary imply that you want to present them as bad and nazi-like. It
> might just the way you have experienced it. For example, most Germans
> won't probably notice anything special about soldiers being exclusively
> white men, because the German military didn't allow women in their ranks
> for a long time (it changed at the beginning of this year), and the
> majority of Germans are white.
Yes this is why in ANH both sides are both still (for the rebels mostly)
white human male... they were shooting in '70s Europe, a time when in
most places in Europe coloured people were still pretty rare... and
overal the whole cast of SW from ANH to AtoC is still male-oriented,
probably because of the target audience.
> The idea of female soldiers is rather new in most countries, and isn't
> taken for granted yet. So maybe it wasn't a consious decision by GL to
> use male soldiers, but something that seemed natural to him (that was
> back in 1977). And maybe there were no black people or other ethnic
> groups in his first movies because he wanted the humans in the GFFA to
> be a rather homogen group, and not so earthlike.
Well the place where he was shooting at the time, europe, was pretty
homogenous at the time - it would've cost extra to "import" coloured
extra's and the budget restraints of ANH were pretty tight. What should
be noted is that Leia (and later again Amidala) as character was at
first to be casted to an asian girl.
The "militairy are male" system doesn't really work in the 70s as most
people had at that point recently been faced with the Israeli army in
action.... which always been mixed-sex. Overall in SW there is a lack of
female characters though (in the Empire Trilogy there is basically 1:
Leia) which i still think is mostly due to the target audience.
MindB_ender
>
> Do not underestimate the power of the Dark MindB_ender:
> >>> could be done in testtubes too of course. But I guess we get too close
> >>> to the "Dune" view on things in that case:)
> >>
> >> Now That could get interesting!! Though I can easily see that sort of
> >> experiment backfiring on the Council. (as is becoming obvious, I don't have
> >> a very high opinion of them. ;-)
> >
> > Heheheheh, right... I'm even convinced that this aspect of the Jedi
> > council (the unfeeling powermongers) will be abused especially by
> > Palpatine to create opposition towards the Jedi order. I've always seen
> > them very much part of the corruption and tiredness of the Old Republic.
>
> Shame that GL doesn't agree... I feel they should have been more
> recognizably human...
Strange ey? I've always had this feeling about the scene where Anakin
faced the council in TPM was exactly where he went over to the
darkside.... hell I would've if faced with that lot. And I've heard many
people agree with that opinion, if it wasn't what Lucas wanted to show I
think he misdirected it.
IMHO the council doesn't want to be faced with any "choosen ones" simply
because it would inflict with their own comfortable position. Thinking
they've done everything right - they can't imagine a reason why "now"
there has to be such a big change. It's a bit like leading a new Marx or
Lenin to the UN and saying this guy has the inevitable better solution
for political structures then parlementary representative democracy...
it would be in the best interests of all involved that he doesn't become
too sucsessful
> >>>> Like I said before....I think it's more in the letting emotions control
> >>>> you, rather than the feeling of emotions themselves.
> >>>
> >>> I think so too, by taking out these feelings the become more balanced,
> >>> neutral... perhaps in some search of a kind of Nirvana? It could be that
> >>> what Kenobi and Yoda eventually do - disappearing - is a direct result
> >>> of this... their being so neutral and empty that they are absorbed whole
> >>> into the Force - a physical form of reaching that kind of Nirvana.
> >>
> >> You keep changing your argument. ;-P yeah, I'm with that. But it goes
> >> against the idea of totally forbidding love (and, by implication, other
> >> emotions). First, there's Ysanne's very good point about them losing their
> >> driving force without said emotion. And then there's my opinion that you
> >> can't just *not* love. Sorry, not human.
> >
> > Well besides them not all being human the driving forces could very well
> > be those of duty, responsibility, obedience to the force etc. Kenobi was
> > hurt by Alderaan exploding, such events influence Jedi in many more ways
> > then a non-Jedi.... which makes the reasoning sound for them to keeps
> > such things from happening for their own good too. You do not need to
> > love to do good, hell: you do not even conciously need to be doing good,
> > if the good stuff is just a side effect of your actions for your own
> > good.
>
> Except that the Jedi style themselves as 'guardians of peace and justice'...
The Empire styles itself to be the 'guardians of peace and order' and
many likewise systems on this Earth have represented themselves as
simmilar entities.... including such greats as the Taliban for example.
How they view themselves is not as much of concequence as how they are
viewed in general by the rest of the population. I don't see that much
proof in ANH-RotJ that the Jedi are actually really being missed by the
Galaxy.
What I personally see in TPM is a society in stasis - and the Jedi are a
likely source of that stasis.
> > No, it means that the stuff he does put in goes over the head of the
> > audience. Much of the sci-fi viewers are fact-nerds. They do not get the
> > poetry that's part of storytelling - where you do not say everything
> > explicitly but where you only make implications at different levels. The
> > easy implications are picked up by most, others aren't as
> > straight-forward and will be overlooked by many... first all the
> > fact-nerds who like the trek way of saying, explaining everything shown.
> > SW is mostly a kind of fairytale fantasy with many double layers and
> > very few explicit explanations - only when obviously half of the
> > audience is gone off-track already. In literature this is far more
> > common then in movies and mostly such layers are indicated by themes or
> > icons within the story - but anything but direct. The fact that the
> > empire only employs white male humans throughout the old trilogy is such
> > a theme: it's more subtle then stating in some kind of narrative "The
> > Empire are male chauvinst Nazi's" which would require all kinds of
> > fitting in again.
>
> OTOH, George hasn't been as effective as he might have been... he's tried to
> introduce unworkable systems into the Prequels, IMHO...
That depends how these systems are addressed in AotC and EP3... we only
have about 33% of the data on them after all:)
> >> But there's always the chance that maybe GL's taken a page from Mike
> >> Stackpole's book and is being devious on us. The real test will be in
> >> watching EpII!
> >
> > hmmm... i doubt that lucas has reada single page of EU. I always got the
> > idea that he rates the novels, cartoons etc just as high as "jar jar
> > lollipops" or "battledroid ice". It's merchendizing for a different
> > target audience and its only goal or importance to _his_ star wars is
> > that it advertizes, brings in some extra cash and it keeps the more
> > irritating and wanting types of fans happy.
>
> Actually, he has read Zahn (and mumbled some polite things) and DE (which he
> rather liked)...
heheh, I didn't know that:)
Still it doesn't really change my view on how Lucas views the EU. In
many ways he does treat it no better then any other form of
merchendising: fun but of no concequence to him.
MindB_ender
isn't that the reason behind newsgroups?;)
> > Where as the Sith are Hate - you'd expect the Jedi to
> >be Love... or something of that nature.
>
> Absolutely. Otherwise, what's the point? On the really basic level that's
> supposedly what SW is all about...a light/dark struggle.
yes indeed, it just seems that the definition of light and dark becomes
more and more one between reason and emotion. Indeed the EU already
expanded a few times on this concept, yesterday I re-read "Tales of the
New Republic" and especially "Uhl Eharl Khoehng" in there points towards
'The greatest conflict comes from within. Our Masters teach us, scold
us, (...) command us to follow reason, not our emotions.'
Seems if the difference with the Sith is that they guide themselves by
their emotions, 'good' or 'bad', this obviously would be the "easy
path".
> > I can understand however that
> >connected to love there is also the (quite big) chance of this love not
> >being forever... which would create a Jedi with a broken heart, which I
> >think you might say includes all kinds of emotions attributed to the
> >dark side.
>
> Yes, this could end up being a problem. Which may argue in favor of Jedi not
> being allowed to have relationships outside the Order, but intra-Jedi ones are
> okay. With the Force, you're more likely to correctly judge a mate in the first
> place, and be able to sense if something may be going sour and institute
> preventative measures....also, your "brethren" in the Order would be a guiding,
> sympathetic force in the event of a break-up; and do their best to prevent one
> in the first place. And....another point which just flew out of my head.
point being that there would be no break up in the first place without
'dark' emotions already being in place... for a couple made up from Jedi
this would cause a double problem. The bethren of the Order would be
able to scan for problems but how to cure them?
> > Almost inherent to Love is of course something like jalousy
> >too...
>
> Perhaps we should break this down a bit: if we accept that Jedi are forbidden to
> love (which I don't, but for the sake of argument), then does that apply to
> *all* love, or is it more sexual love which is forbidden and brotherly love
> which is okay? What I'm getting at is, the idea of brotherly love is that it's
> basically the opposite of jealousy.
We don't know. It might be that the Jedi are free to have sex without
love and actually how QG and Kenobi and later Kenobi and Anakin treat
eachother actually points towards that brotherly love, or just plain
friendship, is all but forbidden. For this we'd need more data - but it
would still conflict with the whole Mara-Luke deal in the EU.
> Discounting the procreation problem, I can see brotherly love being kosher and
> sexual love being not so. The latter brings up a lot more problems in the
> absence of the former.
Yes, agreed... and then procreation could still be done via invitro or
other technologies which avoid actual sexual contact even.
> Then again, we've basically been assuming that one needs love to have babies,
> which human history and its arranged marriages has shown to be not true. I find
> it hard to imagine the Council ordering two of its Jedi to...hmmmphmm, ;-), but
> again, it's a completely different culture we're talking about. This could be a
> possiblity.
Very true, but I doubt the council will put Jedi on "Order Expansion
Duty" not in the last place that involutairy or unfeeling sex is
practically bound to cause problems: it might be viewed as rape or else
the subjects might enjoy themselves so well that the love angle pops up
again.
> Another
> >reason being that it might be seen as a distraction of the matter at
> >hand: serving the galaxy. A Jedi with a love and/or family might be a
> >bit more reluctant to put his/her life on the line for any of that.
>
> Wait, we're not having the discussion about priests anymore. ;-)
It's not really about priest, it's about militairy. In armies and esp.
special forces its fairly known that single soldiers go further then
those who are mated. Of course the opposite could be proven as well:
Alexander the Great promoted inter-soldier relationships under the
theory that someone will fighter better if its for someone he loves.
> Um, right. So, again, perhaps fraternal love could be a driving force (and
> should be, really, which I think what Ysanne's getting at). The good of the
> many being put ahead of the good of the one/few.
Very likely, but still the "good of the many etc" is more of a logical,
rational reason then it is emotional. In case of actual love a person is
actually likely to loose view of "the many" in favour of "the one" they
love. In movies this is a regular theme and in the end practically
always both are satisfied... in reality this would be a rarity.
> >> What points at it? Why do you think that Anakin's Jedi-ness is the
> >> problem and not e.g. that Queens of Naboo aren't allowed to have a
> >> relationship (they seem to get elected, so anything that could lead to a
> >> Queen trying to pass on her power by inheritance should be avoided), or
> >> something else like in the myriad of stories that aren't about Jedi and
> >> still include a man and a woman who are not allowed a relationship.
> >
> >Well, the most direct hint is the name of the trailer "Forbidden Love"
> >or the text on the posters and banners "A Jedi shall not know Anger -
> >Nor Hatred - Nor Love."
>
> This is true. I'm not denying the promos, I'm just trying to suss them out,
> because they don't make logical sense to me. ;-)
I'm sure we'll see the logic with more data... the problem I've had with
it from the start is more that it directly conflicts with what we've
seen inside the EU, where "love" is so common many of the stories have
actually become plain soap-opera instead of space-opera.
MindB_ender
>
> Do not underestimate the power of the Dark MindB_ender:
> > of the Sith - they might very well need to be neutral in everything,
> > including their emotions. Their meditations and such might indicate as
> > such - perhaps they need to be "empty"? It would make them a lot more
> > stabile, as emotions are usually volatile and changing... in which a
> > "light" emotion can easily jump to a "dark" one in a flash - and back
> > again. In this case it wouldn't be seen as pointless or destructive - it
> > would seem balanced and at rest.
>
> Interesting idea... not that that's what Qwi-Gon does, though...
Which is perhaps why he isn't on the council. I've had this theory about
the sabre colours of the Jedi/Sith actually indicate as such: an
indication of various factions within the whole Jedi system. Dark siders
obviously use the Red, but within the Light its not all as one-way as
that... TPM hints upon factions within the Jedi that either promote the
"Living Force" (green?) and that of the "Unifying Force" (blue?). The
Unifying Force faction is apparently in power and bases itself upon this
emotionless goodness - the Living Force faction apparently goes more
towards the natural way of things with "light" emotions being allowed.
In this Luke is unknowingly part of this latter faction - but in many
ways a true one, esp. when looking into the EU... The biggest difference
between the Old and New Order then becomes that in the old the Unifying
Force faction, like Kenobi etc, is no longer in control in the New Order
but that the whole Order has become more like QG used to be. IIRC the
TPM novel indicates that the Old Order used to be more QG-like millenia
before as well, I guess that since then the academics of the Unifying
Force have taken over.
> >> I do think Jedi in general are allowed to love, and some other factor is
> >> in the way of Padme's and Anakin's love.
> >
> > I don't think so anymore... I used to think that love was possible for
> > Jedi and that as such perhaps it would've been Kenobi who got in the way
> > of Anakin getting to Padme - lightly Lancelot/Arthur style... But the
> > hint these trailers have given would mean that Kenobi would never do
> > such a thing - not because he wouldn't want to, but because he's a
> > Jedi... who doesn't love. I think that Anakin being a Jedi will have
> > more reason to obstruct then Padme being a Queen - not in the last place
> > because I strongly believe that there is no other way to leave the Jedi
> > Order except by death.
>
> Perhaps... Obi-Wan says that Anakin has "made acommitment to the Jedi
> order... acommitment not easily broken"... Catholic priests are,
> technically, allowed to marry, but IIRC, they may not afterwards hold a
> benefice, and may only celebrate Mass in private, in their own homes...
> perhaps there is something similar in the way the Jedi do it...
Yes, but a catholic priest isn't a weapon to be equalled with a nuclear
bomb, like a Jedi is. A Jedi is just plainly to dangerous to let go
outside the control of the Order. If the order let ex-Jedi just go rogue
or dark the Order is responsible for all the harm these ex-Jedi would
cause, as they trained and released it upon the Galaxy. As such they'd
then have to hunt down these rogues which would definitely cause more
trouble then just making sure such an entity never gets to leave the
Jedi temple in the first place. A Jedi on "darkside surveilance" (more
closely observed because of noted darkside sympathies or feelings)
wouldn't get outside assignments etc and would be gotten rid of the
moment the council thought the Jedi was lost to their cause.
Non-proliferation of Jedi training makes sense.
Josh Nolan
MindB_ender wrote:
Um... if we're ignoring EU stuff... why couldn't the DS2 have taken longer to build?
However, I agree that them taking that long doesn't sit well with me, either - maybe
they hitched a ride that we never found out about? (Though that's fanfic territory.)
> The fact that within half a galactic standard year (so
> not falcon-onboard-time) the falcon flew sublight from hoth to anoat and
> from anoat to bespin
Where its hyperdrive was repaired...
> and got in time to get solo frosted and defrosted
> and to get to endor means that even with relativity this is not to be
> countered - as apparently all that physics don't work in star wars.
Or maybe they flew around a lot once the hyperdrive was repaired and went back in
time...
Naaah, now I'm just being silly. :)
>
> > > How do we also know that it didn't take months or years or even weeks is
> > > story-progression: if they took such stretches of time in the falcon,
> > > Han and Leia wouldn't be at the unstabile start of their relationship at
> > > cloudcity... they'd been banging eachother for weeks already just to
> > > pass the time. Hell if it had taken years the Solo twins would've met
> > > Lando first time there and then... on their own feet >:)
> >
> > So it might have just taken hours aboard the Falcon...
>
> yes, as it took hours on dagobah.
>
> > > Not really, distance between dagobah and bespin would be considerably
> > > bigger then the distance between Anoat and Bespin. But since we saw the
> > > falcon already fly from one system (Hoth) to another (Anoat) at
> > > sublight, chased by the empire all the way
> >
> > Were they? What about that whole floating away with the trash thing?
>
> ok... Hoth System is where they started... they got chased to Anoat
> System while Luke got his training. In the Anoat System they floated
> away with the trash and started making their way to the Bespin System.
> All these Systems are named as Systems at these points in time/place,
> their suns are not highly visible from one to another so they are likely
> to be as seperate as the Sun-System is from the Alpha Centauri System.
Okay. Haven't seen the movie in ages, so I don't remember the exact sequence. :)
Another possibility based on my ignorance, though - is it possible we just never look in
the directions that the various stars would be at? (They would appear as bright stars
in the starfield, even if they're only a light year away or so.)
> The whole trip they did "sub-light", not via hyperspace, and from Hoth
> to Anoat they were chased by TIE Fighters which are not equiped with
> hyperdrives. Apparently in the star wars universe our physics don't work
> and apparently they can travel lightyears at sublight within hours -
> hours measured outside the ship.
Or, possibly, their 'sublight' drives actually operate on weird physics where they *can*
exceed the speed of light - but they need a hyperdrive to *really* move. (Might explain
the terminology, too.) Does anyone in the trilogy use the term 'sublight' for the
non-hyperdrive propulsions? Or do they only call them 'ion drives'?
> > > and not taking much longer
> > > then lets say a day (seen story progress... if relativity came into
> > > play... the empire could've cut the falcon off easily by using
> > > hyperdrives. In any case I guess it's proven they didn't take years).
> >
> > Nope, it's not. The Empire arrives on Bespin before the Falcon does, at any
> > rate. (Presumably being called in by Fett...)
>
> Yes, because they used hyperdives and took a shortcut via hyperspace,
> which the falcon couldn't do apparently. what i was commenting upon is
> that the Empire didn't use the same trick to cut off the Falcon in the
> chase from Hoth to Anoat.
Maybe they wanted to take over Bespin as well? Or perhaps they just needed the
carbonite facilities and couldn't be bothered installing any on a Star Destroyer?
> > > This cannot be in our universe or physics...
> >
> > Yes, it can. Just not with our propulsion technologies.
>
> so how do you explain going many times faster then light at "sublight"?
In my original post, I was actually proposing they didn't. :)
> > > Taking into account that Lucas is no Tarantino and there isn't a
> > > flashback in the movies even, these scenes, like all in starwars, are
> > > sequencial - or take place at the same time. It almost seems as Lucas
> > > holds to the old renaissance theatre ideas of unity of time, location
> > > and character in a way.
> >
> > Or he didn't really think it out. Or the Falcon had a backup hyperdrive (WEG -
> > ick). Or he thought it would be too tricky to show...
>
> Or he didn't care - as its _his_ universe, where _his_ rules of physics
> work.
Oh, I agree. But if we're trying to impose a universe that *does* behave at least
marginally like our own, then those options are the sorts of ones we have to consider.
:) And just because we see it in that sequence just means it's easier for us to grasp
what's going on - there isn't much evidence in or out of the movies that it *has* to be
the way things happen. :)
> In his universe there is sound in space, starfighters behave as
> atmospheric, starships as whales or submarines... and there is some kind
> of all powerful Force too. Everything on screen actually points to a
> universe with different rules of physics then our own universe -
> probably one where there is somekind of "medium" in space (the
> force?)... a medium which explains a lot of what we see and hear in that
> space...
Air. Also explains the weird life-support suits the Rebels wear... :)
>
> > I'm sure this argument has been done to death in different ways and different
> > places... still, it's fun!
>
> I know, been there before as well. What does irritate me is that most
> viewers have a wong idea of the exact sequence of events within ESB -
> even those you'd expect to have seen it for many many times. The
> question of time doesn't go about the whole trip from Anoat to Bespin...
> as Luke already leaves for Bespin the moment the Falcon does too. The
> whole question of time is about the chase from Hoth to Anoat... during
> which alone Luke gets his training.... cut between scenes of that chase.
> His training effectively stops when the falcon starts floating away from
> that ISD... with the rest of the garbage.
I'd be thinking it'd take Luke a *lot* less time to get there than the Falcon. I'm
sorry, but I still don't buy the idea that the scenes shown are at the same time
(inasmuch as 'same time' has meaning over interstellar distances). Since, by your
argument, it takes Luke about as much time to get to Dagobah as it does the Falcon to
get to Anoat (again, not sure of the timing) then Luke gets only a few hours training,
if that... and that just doesn't sit right with me. (IIRC, Yoda's argument against Luke
leaving is, "You haven't finished your training", not "You've barely started.")
> Since we have two parralel sets of events, Luke's training and the
> Falcon Chase, happening at the same time with lots of scenes from both
> its far easier to time. And that time is hardly more then a day or 2.
Hmmm... like I say, it's been a long time since I've seen the movies, but I always had
the idea it took Luke a lot longer than a day or two to train up to where he was. I
think showing the scenes where they are advances the story without sitting too long on
one thread, even if they don't exactly coincide.
Policrat'
> Policrat' wrote:
>>
>> Do not underestimate the power of the Dark MindB_ender:
>>>>> It does bring up the possibility of "breeding" (super-)Jedi.. though that
>>>>> could be done in testtubes too of course. But I guess we get too close
>>>>> to the "Dune" view on things in that case:)
>>>>
>>>> Now That could get interesting!! Though I can easily see that sort of
>>>> experiment backfiring on the Council. (as is becoming obvious, I don't
>>>> have
>>>> a very high opinion of them. ;-)
>>>
>>> Heheheheh, right... I'm even convinced that this aspect of the Jedi
>>> council (the unfeeling powermongers) will be abused especially by
>>> Palpatine to create opposition towards the Jedi order. I've always seen
>>> them very much part of the corruption and tiredness of the Old Republic.
>>
>> Shame that GL doesn't agree... I feel they should have been more
>> recognizably human...
>
> Strange ey? I've always had this feeling about the scene where Anakin
> faced the council in TPM was exactly where he went over to the
> darkside.... hell I would've if faced with that lot. And I've heard many
> people agree with that opinion, if it wasn't what Lucas wanted to show I
> think he misdirected it.
Hmm... I'd just taken it that he made a major error - because, if that was
what he *wanted* to show, he made a major error by not making the film
interesting enough...
> IMHO the council doesn't want to be faced with any "choosen ones" simply
> because it would inflict with their own comfortable position. Thinking
> they've done everything right - they can't imagine a reason why "now"
> there has to be such a big change. It's a bit like leading a new Marx or
> Lenin to the UN and saying this guy has the inevitable better solution
> for political structures then parlementary representative democracy...
> it would be in the best interests of all involved that he doesn't become
> too sucsessful
Except that Marx was wrong, and Lenin was a Fifth Columnist for the Second
Reich... =)
Remember, the Council *do* decide to train Anakin...
While I almost agree with you, I don't think that that was Lucas'
intention...
>>> No, it means that the stuff he does put in goes over the head of the
>>> audience. Much of the sci-fi viewers are fact-nerds. They do not get the
>>> poetry that's part of storytelling - where you do not say everything
>>> explicitly but where you only make implications at different levels. The
>>> easy implications are picked up by most, others aren't as
>>> straight-forward and will be overlooked by many... first all the
>>> fact-nerds who like the trek way of saying, explaining everything shown.
>>> SW is mostly a kind of fairytale fantasy with many double layers and
>>> very few explicit explanations - only when obviously half of the
>>> audience is gone off-track already. In literature this is far more
>>> common then in movies and mostly such layers are indicated by themes or
>>> icons within the story - but anything but direct. The fact that the
>>> empire only employs white male humans throughout the old trilogy is such
>>> a theme: it's more subtle then stating in some kind of narrative "The
>>> Empire are male chauvinst Nazi's" which would require all kinds of
>>> fitting in again.
>>
>> OTOH, George hasn't been as effective as he might have been... he's tried to
>> introduce unworkable systems into the Prequels, IMHO...
>
> That depends how these systems are addressed in AotC and EP3... we only
> have about 33% of the data on them after all:)
True... but I'm afraid the AotC trailers haven't given me much
encouragement...
>>>> But there's always the chance that maybe GL's taken a page from Mike
>>>> Stackpole's book and is being devious on us. The real test will be in
>>>> watching EpII!
>>>
>>> hmmm... i doubt that lucas has reada single page of EU. I always got the
>>> idea that he rates the novels, cartoons etc just as high as "jar jar
>>> lollipops" or "battledroid ice". It's merchendizing for a different
>>> target audience and its only goal or importance to _his_ star wars is
>>> that it advertizes, brings in some extra cash and it keeps the more
>>> irritating and wanting types of fans happy.
>>
>> Actually, he has read Zahn (and mumbled some polite things) and DE (which he
>> rather liked)...
>
> heheh, I didn't know that:)
>
> Still it doesn't really change my view on how Lucas views the EU. In
> many ways he does treat it no better then any other form of
> merchendising: fun but of no concequence to him.
Which is why he cut two brief scenes from TPM so that it wouldn't affect
continuity, and why he used Zahn's 'Coruscant'?
Pol'
Policrat'
It's a theory that's been around... unfortunately, Mace Windu's 'saber is
purple, for the simple reason that Sam Jackson wanted a big purple
laser-sword...
I think you're looking at things too much from the outside there... but to
get back to the point, Obi-Wan *does* refer to "a committment not easily
broken", which implies that it *is* possible to 'break' it...
Pol'
MindB_ender
I'm not sure if I agree wih that... personally I rate the quality of TPM
higher then that of RotJ, especially storywise. RotJ is a rushjob
smacking everything one upon the other so everyone could get a break
from star wars as quickly as possible. In many ways TPM is more
interesting because it shows more of the SW universe then the whole of
the old trilogy. But yes, taste is something not easily disputed.
> > IMHO the council doesn't want to be faced with any "choosen ones" simply
> > because it would inflict with their own comfortable position. Thinking
> > they've done everything right - they can't imagine a reason why "now"
> > there has to be such a big change. It's a bit like leading a new Marx or
> > Lenin to the UN and saying this guy has the inevitable better solution
> > for political structures then parlementary representative democracy...
> > it would be in the best interests of all involved that he doesn't become
> > too sucsessful
>
> Except that Marx was wrong, and Lenin was a Fifth Columnist for the Second
> Reich... =)
Not my point... the deal is that established power never likes a
revolutional idea.
> Remember, the Council *do* decide to train Anakin...
After QG twisted their arm and it was already more fact then they could
deny. The council was forced to let Kenobi train Anakin - if they'd had
their way Anakin would've been some Jedi's luggageboy for the rest of
his life.
I'm not sure: he shows the end of an Old Order and the instalment of a
New one over the progress of 6 movies. The old one wasn't evil as
such... but it had become tired unflexible and old - for the better of
all it's regenergated into something new and fresh. From TPM especially
I've gotten the impression that was exactly what he wanted to show. The
QG character functions very well because of it, as he represents the
"fresh" type of Jedi in opposition of the "stale" Jedi represented by
the council. "Stale" in this case doesn't mean evil or bad stuff and the
fact that QG is there means its not the only option - even at that time.
"Fresh" is just better.
> >>> No, it means that the stuff he does put in goes over the head of the
> >>> audience. Much of the sci-fi viewers are fact-nerds. They do not get the
> >>> poetry that's part of storytelling - where you do not say everything
> >>> explicitly but where you only make implications at different levels. The
> >>> easy implications are picked up by most, others aren't as
> >>> straight-forward and will be overlooked by many... first all the
> >>> fact-nerds who like the trek way of saying, explaining everything shown.
> >>> SW is mostly a kind of fairytale fantasy with many double layers and
> >>> very few explicit explanations - only when obviously half of the
> >>> audience is gone off-track already. In literature this is far more
> >>> common then in movies and mostly such layers are indicated by themes or
> >>> icons within the story - but anything but direct. The fact that the
> >>> empire only employs white male humans throughout the old trilogy is such
> >>> a theme: it's more subtle then stating in some kind of narrative "The
> >>> Empire are male chauvinst Nazi's" which would require all kinds of
> >>> fitting in again.
> >>
> >> OTOH, George hasn't been as effective as he might have been... he's tried to
> >> introduce unworkable systems into the Prequels, IMHO...
> >
> > That depends how these systems are addressed in AotC and EP3... we only
> > have about 33% of the data on them after all:)
>
> True... but I'm afraid the AotC trailers haven't given me much
> encouragement...
Well he can always add a very long and boring explaining session in Ep3,
like he did with RotJ.... knowing him he'll have too because what he
wants to say just doesn't fit this one trilogy, just like the last time.
Oh well, that might end up good for us if he decides to do a 3rd set
afterall to tie up the loose ends (and create more...) :)
> >>>> But there's always the chance that maybe GL's taken a page from Mike
> >>>> Stackpole's book and is being devious on us. The real test will be in
> >>>> watching EpII!
> >>>
> >>> hmmm... i doubt that lucas has reada single page of EU. I always got the
> >>> idea that he rates the novels, cartoons etc just as high as "jar jar
> >>> lollipops" or "battledroid ice". It's merchendizing for a different
> >>> target audience and its only goal or importance to _his_ star wars is
> >>> that it advertizes, brings in some extra cash and it keeps the more
> >>> irritating and wanting types of fans happy.
> >>
> >> Actually, he has read Zahn (and mumbled some polite things) and DE (which he
> >> rather liked)...
> >
> > heheh, I didn't know that:)
> >
> > Still it doesn't really change my view on how Lucas views the EU. In
> > many ways he does treat it no better then any other form of
> > merchendising: fun but of no concequence to him.
>
> Which is why he cut two brief scenes from TPM so that it wouldn't affect
> continuity, and why he used Zahn's 'Coruscant'?
I think the scenes were cut for costs and time restraints more then for
anything else... a secondary explantion is readily made.
Zahn's Coruscant he apparently picked up from those few novels he
read... now personally I think it's a biatch to make up names for any
story and I wouldn't be surpriced if Lucas felt the same way. His own
name for the planet, Alderaan, he already used for ANH and "Imperial
Center" just don't fit a movie placed decades before the empire...
Coruscant was easy enough to pick up and it don't sound that bad either.
The conflicts he raised with those same Zahn novels in TPM very much
counter balance any 'continuety' he might have taken from them.
MindB_ender
And he might just be part of another faction again... perhaps all of the
council has a purple sabre? Even if you discard the sabre-colours it
stands that TPM notes towards factions within the order with very
different ideas on how to be a Jedi. The QG type being into the more
practical "Living" version and the Yoda/Kenobi type being into the more
academical "Unifying" version. Up to now this has been reflected in
their sabre colours, though I'd be the first to agree that this might
again be broken up in Ep2 and 3... last thing I heard again is that
Mace's sabre is now violet again, not purple - lets see:)
He might just have been his understating self again, from "a certain
point of view" death is certainly not easy... hell I guess from most
POVs that's true. Yes you can break your commitment - if you find it no
problem that your head rolls through the temple halls.
Petra Genske
> In ESB we got the asian Wes Janson and various other non-white rebels,
Really? Where? (that's a serious question, I haven't watched the movies for
years)
That Wes is Asian or Asian-looking isn't very obvious and escaped most
people (including me and the EU authors), and I doubt that it was
intentional.
> before that we got some kind of Calamari in the SWHS Fett-cartoon, women
> are also quite common in rebel forces (leia prime example, mon
> mothma...). In RotJ you get the Sullustians, the Calamari etc. And
But Leia and Mon Mothma are political leaders, no military leaders. With the
exception of ROTJ the Rebell military is as white male dominated as the
Imperial military, and aliens are only added to the movies for exotic
reasons, but don't seem to be a part of the civil war at all. There are only
humans fighting. Except for Chewie, who became a part rather accidentally,
and isn't really seen as an equal imho.
> too in at least ESB and aliens by the time of RotJ... the fact that this
> was done by choice points out that it has a reason. I think it had more
At that time it was done by choice, in that point I agree with you. But I
very much doubt that it was GL's plan from the very beginning. If he'd
wanted to show the racism and chauvinism of the Empire, the Rebel forces
would have had more women, aliens, and non-whites from the very beginning,
budget reasons or not. Later GL apparently realized that the Rebellion
should be more liberal, including more parts of the population.
> shooting in the UK at the time. The moment the budget restraints were
> dropped some more - aliens, females and non-white humans were added to
> the rebellion and not to the empire.
In ROTJ, yes. But if that had been something that was important to GL from
the very beginning, he would have done it in ANH and TESB, too. Budget
reasons aren't a great excuse.
> be noted is that Leia (and later again Amidala) as character was at
> first to be casted to an asian girl.
But it wasn't.
> The "militairy are male" system doesn't really work in the 70s as most
> people had at that point recently been faced with the Israeli army in
> action.... which always been mixed-sex.
Heard of it and known of it, yes, but I doubt most people had already
excepted it as normal at that time. Here in Germany even now it isn't
considered normal.
> Overall in SW there is a lack of
> female characters though (in the Empire Trilogy there is basically 1:
> Leia) which i still think is mostly due to the target audience.
That's most likely true.
Ciao, Petra
--
Petra Genske
petra....@online.de
http://www.xwpilots.de
Policrat'
I think it's more to do with what works against a blue-screen...
It sounds to me as if there are obscure, but valid, ways of Jedi breaking
their 'committment' to celibacy...
Pol'
Policrat'
My theory is that the damage to the hyperdrive was actually to the
*navigation* side of it (or perhaps, since Threepio says that the
'hyperdrive motivator' is damaged, the connection between the navacomp and
the hyperdrive)...
This would mean that Han, Leia, Chewie and Threepio had to calculate a
*manual* course... which would explain why the _Falcon_ wouldn't go to
lightspeed any earlier, and at the same time, would place Bespin an
acceptable distance from Hoth/Anoat...
Imagine them having to make a series of short, and relatively slow, jumps,
and painstakingly calculating their course without the benefit of the
hypernav...
>> The fact that within half a galactic standard year (so
>> not falcon-onboard-time) the falcon flew sublight from hoth to anoat and
>> from anoat to bespin
>
> Where its hyperdrive was repaired...
>
>> and got in time to get solo frosted and defrosted
>> and to get to endor means that even with relativity this is not to be
>> countered - as apparently all that physics don't work in star wars.
>
> Or maybe they flew around a lot once the hyperdrive was repaired and went back
> in time...
>
> Naaah, now I'm just being silly. :)
=)
Entirely possible...
>> The whole trip they did "sub-light", not via hyperspace, and from Hoth
>> to Anoat they were chased by TIE Fighters which are not equiped with
>> hyperdrives. Apparently in the star wars universe our physics don't work
>> and apparently they can travel lightyears at sublight within hours -
>> hours measured outside the ship.
>
> Or, possibly, their 'sublight' drives actually operate on weird physics where
> they *can* exceed the speed of light - but they need a hyperdrive to *really*
> move. (Might explain the terminology, too.) Does anyone in the trilogy use
> the term 'sublight' for the non-hyperdrive propulsions? Or do they only call
> them 'ion drives'?
Hmm...
>>>> and not taking much longer
>>>> then lets say a day (seen story progress... if relativity came into
>>>> play... the empire could've cut the falcon off easily by using
>>>> hyperdrives. In any case I guess it's proven they didn't take years).
>>>
>>> Nope, it's not. The Empire arrives on Bespin before the Falcon does, at any
>>> rate. (Presumably being called in by Fett...)
>>
>> Yes, because they used hyperdives and took a shortcut via hyperspace,
>> which the falcon couldn't do apparently. what i was commenting upon is
>> that the Empire didn't use the same trick to cut off the Falcon in the
>> chase from Hoth to Anoat.
>
> Maybe they wanted to take over Bespin as well? Or perhaps they just needed
> the carbonite facilities and couldn't be bothered installing any on a Star
> Destroyer?
True...
>>>> This cannot be in our universe or physics...
>>>
>>> Yes, it can. Just not with our propulsion technologies.
>>
>> so how do you explain going many times faster then light at "sublight"?
>
> In my original post, I was actually proposing they didn't. :)
;)
>>>> Taking into account that Lucas is no Tarantino and there isn't a
>>>> flashback in the movies even, these scenes, like all in starwars, are
>>>> sequencial - or take place at the same time. It almost seems as Lucas
>>>> holds to the old renaissance theatre ideas of unity of time, location
>>>> and character in a way.
>>>
>>> Or he didn't really think it out. Or the Falcon had a backup hyperdrive
>>> (WEG -
>>> ick). Or he thought it would be too tricky to show...
>>
>> Or he didn't care - as its _his_ universe, where _his_ rules of physics
>> work.
>
> Oh, I agree. But if we're trying to impose a universe that *does* behave at
> least marginally like our own, then those options are the sorts of ones we
> have to consider. :) And just because we see it in that sequence just means
> it's easier for us to grasp what's going on - there isn't much evidence in or
> out of the movies that it *has* to be the way things happen. :)
Agreed...
>> In his universe there is sound in space, starfighters behave as
>> atmospheric, starships as whales or submarines... and there is some kind
>> of all powerful Force too. Everything on screen actually points to a
>> universe with different rules of physics then our own universe -
>> probably one where there is somekind of "medium" in space (the
>> force?)... a medium which explains a lot of what we see and hear in that
>> space...
>
> Air. Also explains the weird life-support suits the Rebels wear... :)
Or as the (canon) novellisation of ANH explains, the 'sound' is a
cheap-and-dirty computerised way of providing situational awareness...
>>> I'm sure this argument has been done to death in different ways and
>>> different
>>> places... still, it's fun!
>>
>> I know, been there before as well. What does irritate me is that most
>> viewers have a wong idea of the exact sequence of events within ESB -
>> even those you'd expect to have seen it for many many times. The
>> question of time doesn't go about the whole trip from Anoat to Bespin...
>> as Luke already leaves for Bespin the moment the Falcon does too. The
>> whole question of time is about the chase from Hoth to Anoat... during
>> which alone Luke gets his training.... cut between scenes of that chase.
>> His training effectively stops when the falcon starts floating away from
>> that ISD... with the rest of the garbage.
>
> I'd be thinking it'd take Luke a *lot* less time to get there than the Falcon.
> I'm sorry, but I still don't buy the idea that the scenes shown are at the
> same time (inasmuch as 'same time' has meaning over interstellar distances).
> Since, by your argument, it takes Luke about as much time to get to Dagobah as
> it does the Falcon to get to Anoat (again, not sure of the timing) then Luke
> gets only a few hours training, if that... and that just doesn't sit right
> with me. (IIRC, Yoda's argument against Luke leaving is, "You haven't
> finished your training", not "You've barely started.")
True...
>> Since we have two parralel sets of events, Luke's training and the
>> Falcon Chase, happening at the same time with lots of scenes from both
>> its far easier to time. And that time is hardly more then a day or 2.
>
> Hmmm... like I say, it's been a long time since I've seen the movies, but I
> always had the idea it took Luke a lot longer than a day or two to train up to
> where he was. I think showing the scenes where they are advances the story
> without sitting too long on one thread, even if they don't exactly coincide.
Agreed...
> Josh.
Pol'
MindB_ender
Definitely... outside the POV of the story a green sabre for example
just means "Jedi in the desert". Luke and QG both use their sabre in the
desert, where blue didn't show very well (or looked greenish anyway). I
think purple might've been rejected because on-screen its hard to
distinguish it from red - which would make him look like a badguy.
Outside this "behind the scenes" reasoning like bluescreens, deserts
etc. I do think that the colours might still have a in-story reason.
Early shots from ANH (trailer) showed all sabres to be white, just like
in R.McQuarry's drawings, the choice to give Ben and Luke a blue sabre
and Vader a red one was a concious one by Lucas... to be equalled with
the green blasters for imperial fighters and red for rebels. Originally
Jedi obviously got blue and Sith red... which was broken up by RotJ's
technical reasons. Personally I wouldn't put it over Lucas' head to
re-integrate the whole thing into a new idea fitting to other such
colour systems in the movies. (Like Luke's clothing getting darker over
ANH-ESB-RotJ or the blaster colours etc.)
Well it might be that Anakin is still a Padawan and that if he broke
that commitment he'd stay a padawan, never receiving his tests for
Knight. Like someone going into a religious order can change his mind
untill he's officially taken in.... but personally I doubt it and if it
is like this - this eternal padawan would be just that, and never
released to the galaxy again. The danger of such an entity going stray
is just too big.
MindB_ender
true, i believe fransiscus and several other latter dark ages christian
sects and cults that wanted to go back to the "man jesus" or the
"original christianity" actually said that this was the best way, as the
faithful would be tested on his faith and commitment each night again.
Apparently this wasn't as much a problem for the holy men that lead
these movements, but that their followers often had bigger problems
keeping to the celibacy/marriage deal. The church of course called it
all heresy because by that time it was accepted dogma that jezus wasn't
married. After a millenium of church dictatorship and brainwashing this
is often still taken as the factual truth.
>secondly,
> there might be a distinction between a conventional rabbi and a carpenter
> from Nazareth 'speaking with authority';
No, as this is cultural and part of a culture/religion/tribe that
especially on these aspects hasn't significantly changed since those
times: the jewish one. (this stasis is a direct effect of being a
constant minority and has been shown throughout history to be a normal
defensive posture of such communities.) Yes, a rabbi is a man "speaking
with authority" and there is evidence that this specific rabbi even
attended templeschool during his youth (which is shortly pointed to in
the NT) the difference comes from the following: he doesn't call himself
a rabbi - others call him rabbi, which I was informed is the regular way
for such a thing to happen (rabbi's aren't ordained but pointed out by
their own community), islamic imans work in simmilar fashion.
The actual deal lies with the fact that they wouldn't do so if he wasn't
married... a rabbi needs to be married for a simple set of reasons: to
keep in contact with the regular people (how can you speak about
something you don't experience yourself?) and to have a link to the
female side of the community. Often rabbi-marriages work as a double
deal, each of the pair working with their part of the population and
thereby not distancing themselves from that population. The fairly equal
status of women in judaism (esp. compared with their other mediteranian
counterparts) is a direct effect of this. The romans and other
civilisations at the time around the mediteranian were more into the
male-macho idea which was as an effect integrated into christianity the
moment the movement moved there.
Another point to consider is that Jesus was a jew himself and would've
corrected anyone calling him rabbi if this wasn't deserved. (and I'd
have to check it, but I think that he's only reffered to as 'rabbi'
after the (his) marriage story)
> thirdly, Paul (and through him,
> Luke) was clearly in direct contact with the Apostles; fourthly, the textual
> transmission of the Bible (not to mention apocryphal books) is *so* diverse
> from such an early period that the idea that I sincerely doubt the
> possibility that anyone would be able to edit every surviving fragment of
> Tatian's Diatasseron and the Hexapla, not to mention every throwaway
> reference in every copy of the work of the second-century apologists...
You are underestimating the power of the church. During the dark ages
they held a (near) complete monopoly on writing, reading and other such
actions plus they had a dictatorial hold over the whole of europe. They
didn't need to edit all those fragments, they had compiled a bible with
all the stuff they allowed in it - everything else was heresy and
subject to the inquisition among others. Now, 2000 years later all
fragments are either fragmentary, inconcequencial, not believed by
anyone, destroyed or in a very big vatican vault. 2000 years is a long
time to do this in, especially if you have absolute power for at least
1000 of thoe years.
> > The reasons for celibacy were, besides those you named already, mostly
> > economical, political (and many evil voices say hetrophobical or even
> > bluntly woman-hating pope(s)). By not allowing priests to have families
> > their power and posessions always flowed back into the church. That its
> > still widespread was proved last summer with the scandal of many african
> > nuns getting raped and impregnated by their fellow church priests who's
> > defence was that that was their only way of not getting aids etc.
>
> Sin, sadly, does happen. But I don't think this is the appropriate place for
> theological dialectic...
> I do feel that you're looking at this from a very particular position... the
> alienation of church property is, after all, the diversion of what has been
> given *to the church* to secular ends (after all, the idea of holding
> property in common seems to have been considered by many in the First
> Century to extend to the entire community of believers); there was a sense
> that married priests led to hereditary priests and ultimately to many
> priests becoming ill-educated sinecurists; and above all, there is the
> particular moral imperative towards celibacy, which, in spite of your view
> of the evidence, and the fact that it has never been unanimously agreed on
> or absolutely enforced, existed in the Church from the beginning...
In those early very tribal days this was a direct and important
defensive posture which was required to spread christiany across many
different tribes - many of which already had rules, traditions and
customs about celibacy and holy men. Later it became a way of containing
the power, riches and dictat of the church, just as it served the tribal
leaders before from getting outstaged by their various druids etc. It
was not based upon the ways of jesus and even if it were that was of no
concequence to the practice and other reasons. Its a way of trying to be
holier then your own messiah/prophet in a simmilar fashion of christians
who claim they don't drink alcohol because of their christian beliefs...
beliefs that include their messiah's power to turn water into wine.
> In short, the ultimate reason for clerical celibacy is a moral imperative
> which, while humanity cannot be expected to cleave perfectly to it, has
> nevertheless been established since the first century AD...
Well, i'd go further then that and say it predates christ by centuries,
if not millenia. Strange thing is that the one tribe we know from those
times that didn't follow it, the jews, are in fact the source of
christianity. I share it together with the conversion of the near
universal mid-winter fest to christmas - even when he wasn't even born
in the winter - it was easier to sell to the other tribes and
substituted their old rituals for new "christian" ones. Very much like
the conversion of various gods (for whine, harvest, travellers...) into
saints (for whine, harvest, travellers...)
> >> This provides a rather useful comparrison with the Jedi, in fact... the Code
> >> stresses celibacy, but among the Jedi on the Rim, marriage is a commonplace,
> >> and Jedi might frequently train their own sons and daughters as Jedi...
> >
> > Problem being that the movies provide completely no evidence for he
> > existace of rinkin Jedi, with all 10,000 Jedi all safely within the
> > confines of a single order - based in a single temple etc. Just like I
> > doubt there is such thing as the "corellian jedi" - I doubt there are
> > any others either. One thing not to forget is that the social control
> > within a society of mind/emotionreaders is very high.
>
> The GFFA is a big place... I *cannot* really accept *such* a tight
> control... clearly, the 'metropolitan' Jedi have to deal with such rogues
> Qwi-Gon Jinn and Count Dooku... while certainly, the collapse of the Order
> might cause an abandonment of the tenets of the Code among survivors like
> Adalric Brandl and Ranik Solusar, I would prefer to see a degree of human
> falability at an earlier stage...
the GFFA is big place, but there are just 2 Sith, just 10,000 Jedi on a
population of trillions and trillions. Jedi powers are really rare
according to canon sources and they are brought under just 2 orders.
Probably this didn't come from the start, perhaps 10,000 years before
ANH there were many many factions of both light and dark but they've had
the time to battle and merge with eachother for 1000s of years as well.
At the time of TPM there are just 2 left... of which the Jedi are
probably the end result of mostly mergers of orders and probably still
has these orders in it in the form of sub-orders and factions. QG wasn't
as much a rogue as Vader, he was an accepted and respected Jedi only his
"faction" apparently wasn't the most powerful at the time. Count Dooku
is a different story completely... which we'll see in the next movie I'm
sure.
> >>>>> And here's a thought: we're thinking of the Jedi in terms of the monastic
> >>>>> poverty, chastity, obedience vows. Hey, since when was Qui-Gon obedient
> >>>>> to the order?? They were exasperated with him....but they didn't kick him
> >>>>> out.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nor does poverty seem to be enforced - just look at the Jedi Council's
> >>>> room.
> >>>
> >>> Look at the vatican, or any other major temple complex... the Jedi
> >>> themselves wouldn't own more then perhaps just their sabre... and this
> >>> would fall to the Order again in case of death. Their "monk-like" robes
> >>> would indeed point out poverty as they don't look to be very elaborate.
> >>> The orderitself could then of course be far more wealthier.
> >>
> >> What about all the 'James Bond' gadgets in their robes...?-)
> >
> > Not even James Bond owns those gadgets.. they're owned by the secret
> > service. The pope might walk around in gold and brocate, live in huge
> > palaces and drive in specially built cars etc... non of it is owned by
> > himself.
>
> Point... but it's a fine line, especially for a Jedi watchman on the Outer
> Rim, who recieved his 'saber and his commission from his father...
Of which we never saw any proof in the canon... outside perhaps Luke but
by that time there was no Jedi Order of any kind to speak of... and just
2 Jedi left of the 10,000.
MindB_ender
> beliefs that include their messiah's power to turn water into wine.
*slaps himself*
WINE! not whine... gah TIE Fighter engines are really getting to me;)
MindB_ender
gah and that was not even the sentence i made the mistake in either... i
need a break:)
Policrat'
I'm not sure I like your tone... and I'll happily bring up several instances
of devout Catholic bishops called to the church after a lifetime spent in a
lay/civil career who remained married, or the pre-Gregorian, but undeniably
Catholic, canons which encourage celibacy as the paramount ideal for all
non-monastic clergy, but allow monogamy as a second option...
>> secondly,
>> there might be a distinction between a conventional rabbi and a carpenter
>> from Nazareth 'speaking with authority';
>
> No, as this is cultural and part of a culture/religion/tribe that
> especially on these aspects hasn't significantly changed since those
> times: the jewish one. (this stasis is a direct effect of being a
> constant minority and has been shown throughout history to be a normal
> defensive posture of such communities.) Yes, a rabbi is a man "speaking
> with authority" and there is evidence that this specific rabbi even
> attended templeschool during his youth (which is shortly pointed to in
> the NT) the difference comes from the following: he doesn't call himself
> a rabbi - others call him rabbi, which I was informed is the regular way
> for such a thing to happen (rabbi's aren't ordained but pointed out by
> their own community), islamic imans work in simmilar fashion.
>
> The actual deal lies with the fact that they wouldn't do so if he wasn't
> married... a rabbi needs to be married for a simple set of reasons: to
> keep in contact with the regular people (how can you speak about
> something you don't experience yourself?)
Imagination... just the same way that a Catholic priest can give pastoral
advice, or the US Government can develop a policy about Afghanistan, or a
film-maker can tell a story...
> and to have a link to the
> female side of the community. Often rabbi-marriages work as a double
> deal, each of the pair working with their part of the population and
> thereby not distancing themselves from that population. The fairly equal
> status of women in judaism (esp. compared with their other mediteranian
> counterparts) is a direct effect of this. The romans and other
> civilisations at the time around the mediteranian were more into the
> male-macho idea which was as an effect integrated into christianity the
> moment the movement moved there.
>
> Another point to consider is that Jesus was a jew himself and would've
> corrected anyone calling him rabbi if this wasn't deserved. (and I'd
> have to check it, but I think that he's only reffered to as 'rabbi'
> after the (his) marriage story)
This is the idea about the Marriage at Cana, yes?
IMHO, your position seems to depend on an untenable idea of an unchanging
and all-embracing orthodoxy... Even if it was not for the prima facie
difficulties (see below) with imagining that the evidence could have been
edited in the ways that would be necessary, I would see the attested
existance of eremitical and celibate Jewish communities which claimed to
posess an 'authoritative' religious revalation (the Essenes, for instance,
or the 'apostles' of John the Baptist), and the major step the early
Christians took in proclaiming their 'good news' to non-Jews, as both
telling against the idea that everyone referred to as 'rabbi' in the Holy
Land at that time needs must have corresponded to the strict judaism of the
Chief Priests and the Pharisees...
I could also bring in the undoubted cultural cross-fertilization between
Judaism and the other civilizations of the Classical Levant, and the known
existance of other prostelytizing - but still more generally 'orthodox' -
Jewish factions...
Admittedly, this isn't something I know that much about... but I think you
are simply creating problems for the sake of your own POV...
>> thirdly, Paul (and through him,
>> Luke) was clearly in direct contact with the Apostles; fourthly, the textual
>> transmission of the Bible (not to mention apocryphal books) is *so* diverse
>> from such an early period that the idea that I sincerely doubt the
>> possibility that anyone would be able to edit every surviving fragment of
>> Tatian's Diatasseron and the Hexapla, not to mention every throwaway
>> reference in every copy of the work of the second-century apologists...
>
> You are underestimating the power of the church. During the dark ages
> they held a (near) complete monopoly on writing, reading and other such
> actions plus they had a dictatorial hold over the whole of europe. They
> didn't need to edit all those fragments, they had compiled a bible with
> all the stuff they allowed in it - everything else was heresy and
> subject to the inquisition among others. Now, 2000 years later all
> fragments are either fragmentary, inconcequencial, not believed by
> anyone, destroyed or in a very big vatican vault. 2000 years is a long
> time to do this in, especially if you have absolute power for at least
> 1000 of thoe years.
The primary difficulty for your argument is that you're treating 'the
church' as if it was a single dictatorial hierarchy... the massively diverse
number of the earliest surviving witnesses - particularly papyrus fragments
form from Egypt, and documents transmitted in Syriac, Aramaic and Nestorian
traditions, but also, to a lesser degree, texts preserved in Greek, not to
mention Insular and Mozarabic manuscripts - make it *impossible* for the
sort of editing that you are advocating to have taken place...
I'd be interested to know exactly what you're basing your ideas on, and I
feel that maybe we should take this part of the discussion to e-mail...
no-one else seems to be wanting to contribute, and I feel that's a more
appropriate medium...
From St Paul, onwards, there has been a clear and consistent sense of
celibacy as the 'best' way for a Christian to live his life... now this
ideal has always interacted (never easily, of course, but always
interacting) with the falible fact of human nature - but it *has* always
been there, and I would imagine that indications of it can be found in the
lives of the early apologists...
>> In short, the ultimate reason for clerical celibacy is a moral imperative
>> which, while humanity cannot be expected to cleave perfectly to it, has
>> nevertheless been established since the first century AD...
>
> Well, i'd go further then that and say it predates christ by centuries,
> if not millenia. Strange thing is that the one tribe we know from those
> times that didn't follow it, the jews, are in fact the source of
> christianity. I share it together with the conversion of the near
> universal mid-winter fest to christmas - even when he wasn't even born
> in the winter - it was easier to sell to the other tribes and
> substituted their old rituals for new "christian" ones. Very much like
> the conversion of various gods (for whine, harvest, travellers...) into
> saints (for whine, harvest, travellers...)
It's certainly something that had affected Judaism in pre-Christian times,
yes. Jeremiah, if memory serves me right, was celibate. And as to the
evolution of the religious calendar, and the association of particular
saints with particular functions, I would regard these as (at least partly)
spontaneous developments, reflecting unconscious human needs and
understandings, and also, perhaps, the very real sense that Christianity was
not just a Jewish sect, but a revelation to be preached to all humanity...
***
I like the idea that the differences among the Jedi are due to the
amalgamation of varying traditions - I just don't know how you can square it
with the sort of control you're suggesting, and your disapproval of ideas
like that of the 'Corellian Jedi'... but as to the issue of Dooku... are you
spoiler-free here?
>>>>>>> And here's a thought: we're thinking of the Jedi in terms of the
>>>>>>> monastic poverty, chastity, obedience vows. Hey, since when was Qui-Gon
>>>>>>> obedient to the order?? They were exasperated with him....but they
>>>>>>> didn't kick him out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nor does poverty seem to be enforced - just look at the Jedi Council's
>>>>>> room.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look at the vatican, or any other major temple complex... the Jedi
>>>>> themselves wouldn't own more then perhaps just their sabre... and this
>>>>> would fall to the Order again in case of death. Their "monk-like" robes
>>>>> would indeed point out poverty as they don't look to be very elaborate.
>>>>> The orderitself could then of course be far more wealthier.
>>>>
>>>> What about all the 'James Bond' gadgets in their robes...?-)
>>>
>>> Not even James Bond owns those gadgets.. they're owned by the secret
>>> service. The pope might walk around in gold and brocate, live in huge
>>> palaces and drive in specially built cars etc... non of it is owned by
>>> himself.
>>
>> Point... but it's a fine line, especially for a Jedi watchman on the Outer
>> Rim, who recieved his 'saber and his commission from his father...
>
> Of which we never saw any proof in the canon... outside perhaps Luke but
> by that time there was no Jedi Order of any kind to speak of... and just
> 2 Jedi left of the 10,000.
We saw no contradiction of it, either... and until we do, the EU evidence
remains valid...
Pol'
Crystal Cooper
> >> to Anoat they were chased by TIE Fighters which are not equiped with
> >> hyperdrives. Apparently in the star wars universe our physics don't work
> >> and apparently they can travel lightyears at sublight within hours -
> >> hours measured outside the ship.
> >
> > Or, possibly, their 'sublight' drives actually operate on weird physics where
> > they *can* exceed the speed of light - but they need a hyperdrive to *really*
> > move. (Might explain the terminology, too.) Does anyone in the trilogy use
> > the term 'sublight' for the non-hyperdrive propulsions? Or do they only call
> > them 'ion drives'?
>
> Hmm...
I've just searched through the scripts. This is said at the arrival at
Alderaan, in *A New Hope*:
HAN: Stand by, Chewie, here we go. Cut in the sublight engines.
[Han pulls back on a control lever. Outside the cockpit window stars
begin streaking past, seem to decrease in speed, then stop. Suddenly the
starship begins to shudder and violently shake about. Asteroids begin to
race toward them, battering the sides of the ship.]
HAN: What the...? Aw, we've come out of hyperspace into a meteor shower.
Some kind of asteroid collision. It's not on any of the charts.
That's the only reference to "sublight" engines that I can find,
however. So it may well be that it's a mistake of sorts, something that
they meant to omit but didn't. At least, that's what I'd assume. But if
it was deliberate, it's still logical to think that you travel below the
speed of light while using them, hence the name *sub*light engines. It'd
be a pretty silly person who named engines that can travel at the speed
of light with a term that meant below the speed of light, wouldn't it?
:)
-----
Crystal Cooper
calliope136hotmail.com
The three rules of the Librarians of Time and Space are:
1) Silence;
2) Books must be returned no later than the date last shown; and
3) Do not interfere with the nature of causality.
-----
Toofiery4u
I agree that there is something to the colors of the lightsabers, but I have
yet to figure it out either. Just to add to the debate here, I remember
reading an interview with one of the SW authors (I can't remember who) and they
were asked about Lucasfilm editing of their drafts and the author replied that
not that much was edited but that it was specified that they were not to
mention the colors of the lightsabers of the various characters. I'm guessing
that this was due to some Lucas-derived meaning for the colors. But then
again, in Star By Star it is repeatedly mentioned that Anakin Solo's lightsaber
is purple, so that policy may be out the window. Or it was pre-determined that
he was to have a purple lightsaber for some specific meaning.
-shannon
just as confused as ever....
Policrat'
OTOH, Han uses 'lightspeed' colloquially to mean 'hyperspace', so in that
context, 'sublight' may simply mean 'non-hyperspace' (much as we might use
'fry' or 'laser' in a relatively inaccurate general sense)...
Pol'
Policrat'
> I agree that there is something to the colors of the lightsabers, but I have
> yet to figure it out either. Just to add to the debate here, I remember
> reading an interview with one of the SW authors (I can't remember who) and
> they were asked about Lucasfilm editing of their drafts and the author replied
> that not that much was edited but that it was specified that they were not to
> mention the colors of the lightsabers of the various characters. I'm guessing
> that this was due to some Lucas-derived meaning for the colors. But then
> again, in Star By Star it is repeatedly mentioned that Anakin Solo's
> lightsaber is purple, so that policy may be out the window. Or it was
> pre-determined that he was to have a purple lightsaber for some specific
> meaning.
All depends how long ago Sam Jackson asked for his purple 'saber... Mace is
supposed to be 'one bad Padmé-kriffer', so maybe that reflects Anakin quite
neatly...
> -shannon
> just as confused as ever....
Pol'
Allison K. East
Wow, first post in ages, and it's a long one!
Major snip, it was giving me a headache trying to figure where to put this
in.
I was watching TESB the other day and this thread was running around in my
head. So naturally I thoght about it.
Think I'd better put a spoiler space in, just in case
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
It stands to reason (in my thought processes anyway) that Dagobah could be a
lot further away because Luke's X-Wing has a hyperdrive. Okay Luke's getting
to Dagobah coincides with the Falcon hiding in the asteroid. The H/L kiss is
followed by Palpatine contacting Vader followed by Luke and Yoda at dinner.
The next time we see the Falcon it's when they discover the Mynocks and being
in the space slug's belly. Cut to Luke training with Yoda. Note the flip, he
probably had been training for at least a few days to master that. Besides,
it would have taken a few days to fix the Falcon (not that they succeeded).
A few scenes later, the Falcon heads to Bespin. Cut to Luke training, he
lifts the crates, Artoo and has the vision. Who says that happens *the day*
the Falcon starts for Bespin? That may have been weeks later. Besides, Yoda
said that it was the future Luke saw. Yoda cautions "If you leave now, help
them you could, but you would destroy all for which they have have fought
and suffered." That stops Luke cold.
When Luke finally leaves for Bespin, the Falcon is already there. But Luke's
comment, "I can't get that vision out of my head..." made me think it was
some time after that he decided to leave, not the day of the vision. So the
Falcon's trip to Bespin could have taken a while. (please keep in mind that
I know nothing about physics or the laws of the universe, I'm avoiding that
subject at TAFE)
I have been thinking way too much but it's too hot here to do anything else.
It was over 30 degrees C the day I watched TESB. Even if you don't believe
my analysis (which may have been the probuct of a head-addled brain) here are
a few quotes to think over:
Yoda said the Dark Side was "Quicker, easier, more seductive." If that's the
case would he really have trained Luke in only a couple of days? Even if it
only seems that long in the movie.
Also, when Yoda reminded Luke about his failure at the Dark Side cave, Luke
said "But I've learned so much since then." Would a statement like that really
have been made a day or two after said failure?
Um, methinks I really have thought about this too much. Note to self, do not
watch movies without something to do at the same time. Mind goes into
overdrive. This is an awfully long post for a simple perspective on an
arguement (arguement too harsh a word. Debate). Sorry if I've rehashed anyone's
points.
Alli
>
> Josh.
MindB_ender
>
> MindB_ender schrieb:
>
> > In ESB we got the asian Wes Janson and various other non-white rebels,
>
> Really? Where? (that's a serious question, I haven't watched the movies for
> years)
> That Wes is Asian or Asian-looking isn't very obvious and escaped most
> people (including me and the EU authors), and I doubt that it was
> intentional.
the EU authors didn't look further then "good shot Janson" and based a
complete new character on that - a good character ok... but not fitting
the ESB-wes except that he can shoot very well.
> > before that we got some kind of Calamari in the SWHS Fett-cartoon, women
> > are also quite common in rebel forces (leia prime example, mon
> > mothma...). In RotJ you get the Sullustians, the Calamari etc. And
>
> But Leia and Mon Mothma are political leaders, no military leaders. With the
> exception of ROTJ the Rebell military is as white male dominated as the
> Imperial military, and aliens are only added to the movies for exotic
> reasons, but don't seem to be a part of the civil war at all. There are only
> humans fighting. Except for Chewie, who became a part rather accidentally,
> and isn't really seen as an equal imho.
I'm not sure if Leia is _just_ a political leader - she seems to do too
many of the militairy missions for that. Then there are more women in
the rebel control rooms and i think also in the ioncannon on Hoth, but
i'd have to check it. Principle stays that even though the rebellion
went away from the "just white male humans" idea from ANH to RotJ - the
Empire didn't, while apparently there were no more reasons to. (and
that's besides the calamari not just taking the "exotic wallpaper"
approach at all... they were in command in the endor battle.)
> > too in at least ESB and aliens by the time of RotJ... the fact that this
> > was done by choice points out that it has a reason. I think it had more
>
> At that time it was done by choice, in that point I agree with you. But I
> very much doubt that it was GL's plan from the very beginning. If he'd
> wanted to show the racism and chauvinism of the Empire, the Rebel forces
> would have had more women, aliens, and non-whites from the very beginning,
> budget reasons or not. Later GL apparently realized that the Rebellion
> should be more liberal, including more parts of the population.
From the start the rebels were recruited in the USA, the imperials from
the UK (or elsewhere, as long as their accents were brit enough)... with
that a lot of choice already came into play... That the aliens didn't
join until later has been explained in the EU by the way - the aliens
were more intimidated by the empire.
> > shooting in the UK at the time. The moment the budget restraints were
> > dropped some more - aliens, females and non-white humans were added to
> > the rebellion and not to the empire.
>
> In ROTJ, yes. But if that had been something that was important to GL from
> the very beginning, he would have done it in ANH and TESB, too. Budget
> reasons aren't a great excuse.
The whole of ANH is a low-budget film, even at that time with a budget
of around 10 million.... because of that much was dropped, including
tribes of wookies fighting the empire in a ground battle... something
put back in in the ANH-remake, RotJ... but sadly with the wookies
changed to e-wo(o)kies.... making ANH the only sw movie to date without
a groundbattle or an extended sabrefight. In ESB there are more asians,
blacks and females in the rebel army already for example in the echo
base control room and the various rebel troopers.
> > be noted is that Leia (and later again Amidala) as character was at
> > first to be casted to an asian girl.
>
> But it wasn't.
true, i was just pointing out the intention.
> > The "militairy are male" system doesn't really work in the 70s as most
> > people had at that point recently been faced with the Israeli army in
> > action.... which always been mixed-sex.
>
> Heard of it and known of it, yes, but I doubt most people had already
> excepted it as normal at that time. Here in Germany even now it isn't
> considered normal.
Yes, but that's in your particular culture - it doesn't say much about
world-wide and especially not for different galaxies;)
> > Overall in SW there is a lack of
> > female characters though (in the Empire Trilogy there is basically 1:
> > Leia) which i still think is mostly due to the target audience.
>
> That's most likely true.
sadly perhaps... as the original target audience gets older they want
something to look at too;) (perhaps the reasoning behind the metal
bikini?;))
MindB_ender
Apparently he asked it before TPM, which gave Lucas ample time to
integrate it into any sabre-colour-code he might've deviced. That this
is all revisionist anyway because at first it was Blue/Red only doesn't
matter as much... that's just Lucas;)
Petra Genske
> the EU authors didn't look further then "good shot Janson" and based a
> complete new character on that - a good character ok... but not fitting
> the ESB-wes except that he can shoot very well.
Well, there wasn't anything else to base the character on. Wes is barely
visible in ESB, and I very much doubt that the SW people paid any attention
to how he and the other minor characters and extras looked like when they
casted them. They needed someone who was available and probably cheap,
that's it..
> I'm not sure if Leia is _just_ a political leader - she seems to do too
> many of the militairy missions for that. Then there are more women in
She takes part in many military missions (there hardly is any choice when
you're the leader of a Rebellion), but she doesn't command them, and she
doesn't have a military rank.
> went away from the "just white male humans" idea from ANH to RotJ - the
> Empire didn't, while apparently there were no more reasons to. (and
> that's besides the calamari not just taking the "exotic wallpaper"
> approach at all... they were in command in the endor battle.)
Right, and I don't doubt that. My point is that I don't think that it was
GL's intention from the very start to show a white male dominated (and
therefore racistic and chauvenistic) Empire in contrast to a multicultural
Rebellion. I'm sure he approves of this interpretation, and in ROTJ he
certainly used this approach, but not before.
> From the start the rebels were recruited in the USA, the imperials from
> the UK (or elsewhere, as long as their accents were brit enough)... with
Yes, but that has nothing to do with the Imperials being all white males and
the Rebels not. On the contrary: if there was so much attention paid to the
accents, shouldn't there at least some non-human, non-white Rebels in ANH,
if that was an important aspect of GL's plan?
> that a lot of choice already came into play... That the aliens didn't
> join until later has been explained in the EU by the way - the aliens
> were more intimidated by the empire.
But that is an EU explanation, and we are talking only about the movies
here, don't we?
I accept all these explanations, the anti-non-human, anti-women views of the
Empire and why the non-humans joined the Rebellion later. My point simply is
that I don't think that GL had all these things planned from the beginning,
that they were an important part of his SW plans (if any part at all).
> a groundbattle or an extended sabrefight. In ESB there are more asians,
> blacks and females in the rebel army already for example in the echo
> base control room and the various rebel troopers.
All these aren't very visible, not visible enough to make a point imho.
And we have to take into account that we never see the faces of ordinary
Imperial soldiers, we only know what their superiors look like, so we can't
really compare ordinary Rebel soldiers with ordinary Imperial soldiers, as
we never see the latter.
> Yes, but that's in your particular culture - it doesn't say much about
> world-wide and especially not for different galaxies;)
That wasn't my point. In the 70s, when ANH was filmed, and in some places
even now, male soldiers are considered normal, and female soldiers are
something special. So if you have female soldiers in a movie, it probably
was done intentionally, to make a point, while having only male soldiers
might be something that just happened, without the filmmaker trying to make
a point of it. So you can have an all-male army to show the chauvinism of
the government, but you can also have it just for the reason that it is
normal in your country/your culture.
If the first were true in the case of ANH, I would expect a sharper contrast
between Rebel and Imperial forces.
Ysanne
Petra Genske wrote:
>
> MindB_ender schrieb:
>
> > the EU authors didn't look further then "good shot Janson" and based a
> > complete new character on that - a good character ok... but not fitting
> > the ESB-wes except that he can shoot very well.
>
> Well, there wasn't anything else to base the character on. Wes is barely
> visible in ESB, and I very much doubt that the SW people paid any attention
> to how he and the other minor characters and extras looked like when they
> casted them. They needed someone who was available and probably cheap,
> that's it..
I wholeheartedly agree. Is the guy in the RS computer game the film
Janson (yes, I'm a no-movie-just-books addict, too)? If yes, then either
the colours are totally off, or the guy playing Janson is a white guy
with a somewhat chubby face (at least in that helmet).
> > went away from the "just white male humans" idea from ANH to RotJ - the
> > Empire didn't, while apparently there were no more reasons to. (and
> > that's besides the calamari not just taking the "exotic wallpaper"
> > approach at all... they were in command in the endor battle.)
>
> Right, and I don't doubt that. My point is that I don't think that it was
> GL's intention from the very start to show a white male dominated (and
> therefore racistic and chauvenistic) Empire in contrast to a multicultural
> Rebellion. I'm sure he approves of this interpretation, and in ROTJ he
> certainly used this approach, but not before.
I don't even think this whole racism idea (because of the lack of
non-white non-males) occured to him at first. I mean, the people around
him, the ones he worked with, were mostly white males...
> > that a lot of choice already came into play... That the aliens didn't
> > join until later has been explained in the EU by the way - the aliens
> > were more intimidated by the empire.
>
> But that is an EU explanation, and we are talking only about the movies
> here, don't we?
Thank you so very much for pointing this out. Really, if in one post a
person argues that we can kick the EU books into the bin just because GL
changed his views on Jedi and the Force, then the EU is no relevant
source anymore. At least not in that specific discussion, and not for
that specific person. (No offense intended.)
> So you can have an all-male army to show the chauvinism of
> the government, but you can also have it just for the reason that it is
> normal in your country/your culture.
And how normal were women in the US army in the 70s? Not really.
Thanks again Petra.
Ysanne
Andrew
>
>
> Petra Genske wrote:
> >
> > MindB_ender schrieb:
> >
> > > the EU authors didn't look further then "good shot Janson" and based a
> > > complete new character on that - a good character ok... but not
fitting
> > > the ESB-wes except that he can shoot very well.
> >
> > Well, there wasn't anything else to base the character on. Wes is barely
> > visible in ESB, and I very much doubt that the SW people paid any
attention
> > to how he and the other minor characters and extras looked like when
they
> > casted them. They needed someone who was available and probably cheap,
> > that's it..
>
> I wholeheartedly agree. Is the guy in the RS computer game the film
> Janson (yes, I'm a no-movie-just-books addict, too)? If yes, then either
> the colours are totally off, or the guy playing Janson is a white guy
> with a somewhat chubby face (at least in that helmet).
The only picture of Janson in the game is taken from ESB.
--
Andrew
===============
"We live for the one,
we die for the one.
But we *don't* die stupidly."
--Captain David Martel,
_To Live and Die in Starlight_
Policrat'
I'm not saying it's easy... aye, it's possible that a Jedi who marries has
to remain under strict supervision, or something...
Pol'
dark...@uq.net.au
> MindB_ender schrieb:
>
Apologies in advance if I repeat anything that's already been said - I haven't been around lately so I'm very
much a latecomer to this discussion :>
(Bad netiquette, I know - but I'm too lazy to track down the posts I missed. *shrug*)
*snip*
>
> > I'm not sure if Leia is _just_ a political leader - she seems to do too
> > many of the militairy missions for that. Then there are more women in
>
> She takes part in many military missions (there hardly is any choice when
> you're the leader of a Rebellion), but she doesn't command them, and she
> doesn't have a military rank.
Minor point here - leader *in* a rebellion, not leader *of* a rebellion. That job fell to the likes of Bail
Organa (politically, ANH), Mon Mothma (politically, RotJ), Dodonna (militarily, ANH), Rieekan (militarily,
ESB), Madine (militarily, RotJ) and Ackbar (militarily, RotJ). Leia had influence because of her father's role
and because of her position as a former senator, but she was not necessarily a member of the inner circle.
(If EU references are allowed, the three primary political leaders were initially Bail Organa, Mon Mothma and
Garm Bel Iblis. Organa died with Alderaan and Bel Iblis went off and started his own private army, leaving Mon
Mothma as the focal point for the organisation).
To get a better feel for representation in the rebel forces I'd suggest looking at:
ANH:
The Yavin pilot's briefing room scene
The medal presentation ceremony
ESB:
The Hoth pilot's briefing room scene
Exterior shots of the Hoth ground battle
RotJ:
The briefing scene on Home One
Various shots of the commando force which assaults the shield bunker
These are the only scenes I can think which might portray a feel for the "common grunt" of the Rebellion. I
have no idea what conclusions would be drawn from such an inspection, btw. It's not something that
particularly interests me - generally, attempts to draw these sorts of inferences say a lot more about the
person drawing the inference than they do about the person responsible for the piece being analysed. (FWIW,
something - not written by me - which pretty much sums up my own opinion on this whole idea - go to
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/index.html, click on "Essays" then click on "Racism in Star Wars and Star
Trek")
*snip*
>
> > Yes, but that's in your particular culture - it doesn't say much about
> > world-wide and especially not for different galaxies;)
>
> That wasn't my point. In the 70s, when ANH was filmed, and in some places
> even now, male soldiers are considered normal, and female soldiers are
> something special. So if you have female soldiers in a movie, it probably
> was done intentionally, to make a point, while having only male soldiers
> might be something that just happened, without the filmmaker trying to make
> a point of it. So you can have an all-male army to show the chauvinism of
> the government, but you can also have it just for the reason that it is
> normal in your country/your culture.
> If the first were true in the case of ANH, I would expect a sharper contrast
> between Rebel and Imperial forces.
I have a feeling that link I gave above is a little tangential to the current discussion, which seems to be
whether or not GL _intended from the start_ for the "superior race" idea to be part of the Imperial
philosophy. Without being able to get inside the man's head, from what I've read/seen about the making of Star
Wars, I'd tend to favour Petra's opinion. With ANH (and, to some degree, ESB), Lucas wasn't setting out to
make any sort of political or philosophical point - he was out to tell a 'ripping good yarn'. Later on, with
RotJ (and, some would say, the switch from Gary Kurtz to Rick McCallum as producer), the social engineering
side of the LFL began to get into gear, and, from that point on, I'd be quite willing to believe that there
_is_ a hidden agenda (albeit, not necessarily one that belongs to GL).
Something relevant from a psychological viewpoint is that, just because we consciously reject a particular
stereotype, it doesn't mean that stereotype isn't still deeply ingrained into our unconscious. Unless
something happens to cause us to _recognise_ that we are running afoul of a preconception, then we continue to
operate on assumptions which are entirely unjustified on the available evidence. So, as soon as we "just do it
without even thinking about it", then our built-in prejudices and preconceived notions hold sway, no matter
how many high-minded ideals our conscious mind subscribes to. But such a beast is the human animal *eg*
Cheers,
Nick.
Any In Nomine fans here? I have some theories about Rick McCallum...
P.S. Don't believe me about that last paragraph? I have a riddle for you...
"A boy and his father go out rock climbing, and the boy suffers a nasty fall. The father calls for medical
assistance, and the rescue chopper comes out and airlifts them to the nearest hospital. While the father paces
nervously in the waiting room, the boy is rushed into the operating theatre. The surgeon comes in, approaches
the table, and then stops, saying 'I can't operate on this boy. He's my son!'
How is this possible?"
Even if you figure it out quickly yourself (please don't rush in with the answer on the ng - let anyone who
wants to, figure it out for themselves. Anyone who desperately wants to know the answer can email me), try it
on people you know. I'm always amazed at how badly it can stump otherwise intelligent and civilised
individuals - all because of one deeply ingrained stereotype of Western culture, that most people would
consciously deny :>
Kristy Henscheid
>MindB_ender wrote:
>> Ysanne wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Spoilers for EpII trailers, look out below!
>> > >
>> > > W
>> > > H
>> > > E
>> > > E
>> > > E
>> > > E
>> > > E
>> > > E
>> > > E
>> > > E
>> > > E
>> > > !
>> > > !
>> > > !
>> > >
>
>> > the ones who still do. Such a pointless rule is the ideal way to drive
>> > people to the dark side.
>>
>> I'm not entirely sure its a pointless rule... if we look at the person
>> we know that went against it, Anakin, you'd say that there is enough
>> reason to uphold it.
>
>But THAT'S just the point! Hadn't been there a rule obstructing Anakins
>love, there would have been no reason to reject the Jedi and turn to the
>dark side. He'd be happy and not think of hate at all.
>Argh. Am I so ineffective in trying to bring my message across?
I see what you're getting at, Ysanne. ((hugs)) And I agree with ya, too!
PK
catching up...and glad to see this thread still out there
"There are many Antilles, but there is only one Wedge."
http://www.swfanfic.com/afw
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~khensche
[to email me: the duck is darkwing]
Kristy Henscheid
>Do not underestimate the power of the Dark Knight:>> news:3BF68A6C...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL...
Um, possible spoilers for EpII trailers. I think. Anyway, be careful!
i
'
m
b
a
c
k
!
>> I think that EU defence is so people don't rant so much. Basically, we have
>> to accept what is in the movies as cannon, however fans grate over Greedo
>> shooting first (another character who's very confusing thanks to the EU).
>
>No! We *don't* have to accept that!
That's right! We're rabid fans, we should be allowed to denounce utter crap
when we see it!!
(praying for original tril DVDs with the option of seeing SE *or* original.
ha,ha,ha.)
>>>> Its been stated often that Corellian Jedi ran things very differently to
>>>> those Jedi back at the ranch...temple...whatever :)
>>>
>>> Ahh... and where was this stated? Actually - where do we see a Corellian
>>> Jedi?
Um, stuff that Mike wrote. Again you get the EU vs. canon argument....not going
there...
>Aye... I'd always assumed that there was a big contrast between the
>metropolitan Jedi in the Temple and the more 'rough-and-ready' Jedi on the
>Rim...
Cool idea, Pol'. I like it! After all, it's one thing to make the rules,
another to actually practice them or see which ones need to be bent in the Real
World.
>> Some accounts state that Yoda lived a primarily solitary life, alomst a
>> hermit. Explains how he survived his self-imposed exile on Dagobah without
>> going balmy.
>
>Yeah...
Um, you're talking about Yoda. By definition he's balmy! (Frank Oz!)
>Except that the Dark *doesn't* "dominate their destint"... are we supposed
>to think that's what happens to Luke after his brief fttDS aboard the DS2?
>The whole point of what Luke does, IMHO, is that he shows that it's possible
>to just *walk away*...
And ObEwan, for that matter. ;-)
>Alternatively, since there's no EU account of how Jaster Mereel 'became'
>Boba Fett, it's entirely possible that the original Fett did a "Dread Pirate
>Roberts"...
::giggle:: That would be Very cool! "I'll most likely kill you in the
morning."
>No... because there are too many unacceptable differences between the
>Prequels and the OT...
The really annoying thing is, it's GL's continuity and he can contradict if if
he wants to. ;-) (I still hold that he doesn't seem to care much about
continuity, he just wants to make merchandising money so he can use the latest
digital gizmos regardless of whether they actually add to the film or not...)
>> But finally, thank you. Its been far too long since I've debated Star Wars
>> with someone in such an enjoyable fashion.
See why I Love this thread? :o)
--Prophet Kristy
Kristy Henscheid
>Do not underestimate the power of the Dark khen...@duck.uoregon.edu:
>> MindB_ender put forth:
>>> Kelly Grosskreutz wrote:
>>
>> Spoilers for EpII trailers, look out below!
>>
>> W
>> H
>> E
>> E
>> E
>> E
>> E
>> E
>> E
>> E
>> E
>> !
>> !
>> !
>>
>>
>>> to push Kenobi over the edge.
>>
>> I'm of the opinion that yes, for a few moments in that final battle at the end
>> of TPM, ObEwan *did* go to the Dark Side. He almost lost because of it....but
>> then realized what he was doing and saved himself. (I won't go deeper into it
>> than that, since that's incidental to the present discussion...) But MHO, of
>> course.
>
>I'd say it's still rather less that what Luke does in RotJ...
Well, yes. True. Both came very close to death by messing with stuff they
didn't understand...
>> I don't think I'm getting to a point here, but that's my fault; Catholic
>> doctrine warring with my inner romantic, and wondering what a priest would do
>> if he happened upon a soul mate. I think I'm going to stop there.....this'll
>> require some deep thought and I should stop thinking aloud. ;-)
>
>Aye...
Shush, you. ;-P
>> And here's a thought: we're thinking of the Jedi in terms of the monastic
>> poverty, chastity, obedience vows. Hey, since when was Qui-Gon obedient to
>> the order?? They were exasperated with him....but they didn't kick him out.
And then there's the question of "did Qui-Gon and Shmi get it on that night?"
(I personally don't think so, but the fanfic'ers, OTOH...)
>Yeah... IMHO, Qwi-Gon is far more typical of the sort of Jedi who's actually
>out on the mean streets of the GFFA...
Ooooh, yes. Good point. I see that. He doesn't follow the rules because he
knows it's impractical to do so.
>>> The emotions coming with the territory are just too
>>> conflicting to take place inside a Jedi without the effects they had on
>>> Anakin. Even if Yoda didn't let Luke vow upon the celibacy, poverty and
>>> obedience I'm sure Luke was informed of them as they are the basis of an
>>> order...
>>
>> But they may not be the basis. Here we run the risk of being "present-minded"
>> in talking about a completely totally different culture. (The same conflicts
>> many of us may have when confronted with the idea that Amidala was the leader
>> of her planet and was 14 years old. But Naboo is so different, and to them,
>> this is a normal thing.)
>
>Either that, or GL's just been stupid...
Unfortunately a possiblity here.
--Prophet Kristy
ducking and running
Kristy Henscheid
>Do not underestimate the power of the Dark MindB_ender:
>> Ysanne wrote:
>>> khen...@duck.uoregon.edu wrote:
>>>>> Kelly Grosskreutz wrote:
>>>>>> "MindB_ender" <A.C.W.T...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:3BF5663B...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL...
>>>>
>>>> Spoilers for EpII trailers, look out below!
>>>>
>>>> W
>>>> H
>>>> E
>>>> E
>>>> E
>>>> E
>>>> E
>>>> E
>>>> E
>>>> E
>>>> E
>>>> !
>>>> !
>>>> !
>>>>
>>>
(snip Catholic priests discussion. I may be a Catholic, but I'm not clear on
all the rules, so I'm not even going to stick my neck out on that.)
>>> Anyway, why compare the Jedi to a religious order? IMO, they're not.
>>> They are more like a martial arts school for the very gifted, training
>>> Force-sensitive people to think clearly despite their emotions, and
>>> don't do harm unintentionally.
>>
>> Various people like Tarkin, Solo and Tagge inside the GFFA seem to see
>> it as a religion (from memory: "...your sad devotion to that ancient
>> religion..." - tagge "...i find your lack of faith disturbing..." -
>> vader (note "faith") "...hokey religions and ancient weapons..." -
>> han...). The rebels seem to believe in the same religion... where a Jedi
>> would be a priest or monk I gather and the rebels just the lay-men. That
>> this religion comes with an infinite "deus ex machina" is just the
>> fantasy aspect of star wars i guess:)
>
>Aye... I always took the Jedi to be a military order, like the Templars...
They certainly seem to be! And besides--the Templars! yay!
(/me reads too much Katherine Kurtz. Wait, there's no such thing!)
>>>> And here's a thought: we're thinking of the Jedi in terms of the monastic
>>>> poverty, chastity, obedience vows. Hey, since when was Qui-Gon obedient to
>>>> the order?? They were exasperated with him....but they didn't kick him out.
>>>
>>> Nor does poverty seem to be enforced - just look at the Jedi Council's
>>> room.
>>
>> Look at the vatican, or any other major temple complex... the Jedi
>> themselves wouldn't own more then perhaps just their sabre... and this
>> would fall to the Order again in case of death. Their "monk-like" robes
>> would indeed point out poverty as they don't look to be very elaborate.
>> The orderitself could then of course be far more wealthier.
>
>What about all the 'James Bond' gadgets in their robes...?-)
:-P
If you're paralleling them to the Templars, then you can have the best of both
worlds there. The brothers themselves (The Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and
the Temple of Solomon) are supposed to live in poverty. (Though for the
knights, poverty is somewhat loosely definced, as they do have a horse...and
they're not cheap) When they join, all their worldly possessions go to the
Order. Which did get quite rich, which was the main reason they were taken out
by King Philip le Bel.
--Prophet Kristy
Templar fangirl
Kristy Henscheid
>Kristy Henscheid wrote:
>> MindB_ender put forth:>> >> EpII Trailer spoilers getting milder, but still there. (we're largely
>> >> speculating!)
>> >>
>> >> E
>> >> U
>> >> G
>> >> O
>> >> R
>> >>
>> >> A
>> >> T
>> >> N
>> >> E
>> >> R
>> >>
>>
>> > It
>> >does bring up the possibility of "breeding" (super-)Jedi.. though that
>> >could be done in testtubes too of course. But I guess we get too close
>> >to the "Dune" view on things in that case:)
>>
>> Now That could get interesting!! Though I can easily see that sort of
>> experiment backfiring on the Council. (as is becoming obvious, I don't have a
>> very high opinion of them. ;-)
>
>Heheheheh, right... I'm even convinced that this aspect of the Jedi
>council (the unfeeling powermongers) will be abused especially by
>Palpatine to create opposition towards the Jedi order. I've always seen
>them very much part of the corruption and tiredness of the Old Republic.
Makes sense. people do tend to resent and/or fear what they do not understand.
And I imagine the Force is well-nigh incomprehensible to a layperson.
>> >> Like I said before....I think it's more in the letting emotions control you,
>> >> rather than the feeling of emotions themselves.
>> >
>> >I think so too, by taking out these feelings the become more balanced,
>> >neutral... perhaps in some search of a kind of Nirvana? It could be that
>> >what Kenobi and Yoda eventually do - disappearing - is a direct result
>> >of this... their being so neutral and empty that they are absorbed whole
>> >into the Force - a physical form of reaching that kind of Nirvana.
>>
>> You keep changing your argument. ;-P yeah, I'm with that. But it goes against
>> the idea of totally forbidding love (and, by implication, other emotions).
>> First, there's Ysanne's very good point about them losing their driving force
>> without said emotion. And then there's my opinion that you can't just *not*
>> love. Sorry, not human.
>
>Well besides them not all being human the driving forces could very well
>be those of duty, responsibility, obedience to the force etc. Kenobi was
>hurt by Alderaan exploding, such events influence Jedi in many more ways
>then a non-Jedi.... which makes the reasoning sound for them to keeps
>such things from happening for their own good too. You do not need to
>love to do good, hell: you do not even conciously need to be doing good,
>if the good stuff is just a side effect of your actions for your own
>good.
I don't agree with you, but that's life. Agree to disagree? ;-)
>> >> Get the feeling GL hasn't thought about this nearly as hard as we have? ;-)
>> >
>> >I get the feeling he has in fact.
>>
>> But then why aren't we getting his vision? He's either got a very messed-up
>> system....or we're just not getting his meaning. Which, in a saga this big,
>> ends up meaning very sloppy storytelling.
>
>No, it means that the stuff he does put in goes over the head of the
>audience.
Which means....sloppy storytelling. If you want something to be understood, you
tell it in a way that it can be. Or, you can be like the p-chem teacher, who's
only capable of explaining something one way and therefore, not a very good
teacher.
> Much of the sci-fi viewers are fact-nerds. They do not get the
>poetry that's part of storytelling - where you do not say everything
>explicitly but where you only make implications at different levels.
You're making excuses that we don't need, however. The very fact that we're
having this discussion shows that we're *not* the sort of sci-fi fans who build
scale models of the ships and worry about relative conundrums and stuff. We're
delving deeper, into the philosophy. And we're missing GL's point.
>> But there's always the chance that maybe GL's taken a page from Mike Stackpole's
>> book and is being devious on us. The real test will be in watching EpII!
>
>hmmm... i doubt that lucas has reada single page of EU. I always got the
>idea that he rates the novels, cartoons etc just as high as "jar jar
>lollipops" or "battledroid ice". It's merchendizing for a different
>target audience and its only goal or importance to _his_ star wars is
>that it advertizes, brings in some extra cash and it keeps the more
>irritating and wanting types of fans happy.
You won't get any argument from me on that!
--Prophet Kristy
Kristy Henscheid
thing in SW. look out below. ;-)
MindB_ender put forth:
>Petra Genske wrote:
>> MindB_ender wrote:
>>
>> Besides, throughout the movies the Rebels are mainly male and white,
>> too. Granted, they have female leaders (political leaders, not
>> military), but that's it. Only in ROTJ we see a few non-humans among
>> them, and I guess that's only because GL got aware of the political
>> correctness thing.
>
>In ESB we got the asian Wes Janson
Asian Wes Janson? Um, I don't think so....AFAIK Ian Liston is British...
> In the empire from ANH to RotJ we see _just_ male
>white humans, mostly with brit accents to boot. The difference was by
>choice, or there'd be women or at least coloured humans in the empire
>too in at least ESB and aliens by the time of RotJ... the fact that this
>was done by choice points out that it has a reason. I think it had more
>to do with budget then political correctness in fact, in ANH it
>would've been too expensive to add convincing alien rebels and they were
>shooting in the UK at the time. The moment the budget restraints were
>dropped some more - aliens, females and non-white humans were added to
>the rebellion and not to the empire.
I don't see budget having anything to do with it...if anything women would be
cheaper to hire. ;-) I find it more of a reflection of the times in which the
films were made. The equality movement still getting going, more diverse people
getting more diverse jobs, etc.
>> And having a military force only consisting of white men doesn't
>> necesssary imply that you want to present them as bad and nazi-like. It
>> might just the way you have experienced it. For example, most Germans
>> won't probably notice anything special about soldiers being exclusively
>> white men, because the German military didn't allow women in their ranks
>> for a long time (it changed at the beginning of this year), and the
>> majority of Germans are white.
>
>Yes this is why in ANH both sides are both still (for the rebels mostly)
>white human male... they were shooting in '70s Europe, a time when in
>most places in Europe coloured people were still pretty rare... and
>overal the whole cast of SW from ANH to AtoC is still male-oriented,
>probably because of the target audience.
Okay, explain this to me. The idea is (and I don't believe it) that SW fans are
mainly male. So why have all male characters? Why not have hot-looking female
ones, a la Star Trek? Makes no sense...but maybe I'm just being bitter because
it seems that Hasbro is being misogynist, every time I try to find Amidala
figures and an unsuccessful. Okay, I'm bitter.
I must have deleted too much....I remember wanting to reply to a comment to the
effect of "hey, there are girls in the Rebel Alliance. Leia and Mon Mothma!"
But....are there any OTHER girls to be seen? NO! Why do you think I was so
excited to see the female Naboo pilot in TPM? (I cheered.)
--Prophet Kristy
not a feminist, but all about Girl Power in SW fandom (notice there are more
girls here on AFW?)
Kristy Henscheid
>Policrat' wrote:
>> Do not underestimate the power of the Dark MindB_ender:
Don't lose that spoiler space guys, unless you've no longer got spoilers. And
then, take it out of the subject line, too. :ahem: ;-)
Um, this appears to be just speculation now. I think it's safe.
>IMHO the council doesn't want to be faced with any "choosen ones" simply
>because it would inflict with their own comfortable position. Thinking
>they've done everything right - they can't imagine a reason why "now"
>there has to be such a big change. It's a bit like leading a new Marx or
>Lenin to the UN and saying this guy has the inevitable better solution
>for political structures then parlementary representative democracy...
>it would be in the best interests of all involved that he doesn't become
>too sucsessful
But, they're being stooopid, IMO. Yoda (and probably a few others) can sense
how powerful Anakin's potential is. If they were smart manipulating bastards,
they would want to control him at all costs. They should not let this person
out of their sight, to go rogue on them. Which he did.
>What I personally see in TPM is a society in stasis - and the Jedi are a
>likely source of that stasis.
I'm not so sure about the Jedi being the source--military/religious order not
being a usual source of change, granted--but I do see that society there is
getting pretty hidebound, indeed.
This raises the question: some change needed to be introduced. maybe Palpatine
was really just what that world needed?
>> Actually, he has read Zahn (and mumbled some polite things) and DE (which he
>> rather liked)...
He would! ;-P
>Still it doesn't really change my view on how Lucas views the EU. In
>many ways he does treat it no better then any other form of
>merchendising: fun but of no concequence to him.
IMHO, he seems to treat *all* of SW that way....
--Prophet Kristy
cynic
Kristy Henscheid
>Kristy Henscheid wrote:
>> MindB_ender put forth:
>> >> MindB_ender wrote:
>>
>> Speculation about the Jedi, spurred by things we see in EpII trailers. Spoilers
>> ahead.
>>
>> L
>> O
>> O
>> K
>>
>> O
>> U
>> T
>>
>> B
>> E
>> L
>> O
>> W
>> !
>>
>> >> But considering that the Jedi Order was alive and well for many
>> >> generations, plus that Jedi aren't necessarily stupid enough to enforce
>> >> their own extinction, they just won't make such a celibacy rule. It is
>> >> contraproductive, and agains everything in human (and probably lots of
>> >> other species') nature, plus love is an emotion that helps the light
>> >> side. So why ban it?
>> >
>> >All agreed - which is is another reason to bring it up - it sounds like
>> >a contradiction.
>>
>> A big one. Which, luckily, we're crazy enough to try and resolve using very
>> limited knowledge. ;-)
>
>isn't that the reason behind newsgroups?;)
You got it! :o)
>> > Where as the Sith are Hate - you'd expect the Jedi to
>> >be Love... or something of that nature.
>>
>> Absolutely. Otherwise, what's the point? On the really basic level that's
>> supposedly what SW is all about...a light/dark struggle.
>
>yes indeed, it just seems that the definition of light and dark becomes
>more and more one between reason and emotion. Indeed the EU already
>expanded a few times on this concept, yesterday I re-read "Tales of the
>New Republic" and especially "Uhl Eharl Khoehng" in there points towards
>'The greatest conflict comes from within. Our Masters teach us, scold
>us, (...) command us to follow reason, not our emotions.'
>Seems if the difference with the Sith is that they guide themselves by
>their emotions, 'good' or 'bad', this obviously would be the "easy
>path".
But they're not saying to give up emotion altogether...they're saying to not let
your emotions control your actions. Which is always a good idea, and again,
what I think the Jedi ideal is.
>> Then again, we've basically been assuming that one needs love to have babies,
>> which human history and its arranged marriages has shown to be not true. I find
>> it hard to imagine the Council ordering two of its Jedi to...hmmmphmm, ;-), but
>> again, it's a completely different culture we're talking about. This could be a
>> possiblity.
>
>Very true, but I doubt the council will put Jedi on "Order Expansion
>Duty"
Order Expansion Duty! ROTFLMAO!!
> not in the last place that involutairy or unfeeling sex is
>practically bound to cause problems: it might be viewed as rape or else
>the subjects might enjoy themselves so well that the love angle pops up
>again.
::shrug:: Um, I could maybe start a disussion on the biological relevance of
Why We Usually Like Sex......but I really don't want to.
> > Another
>> >reason being that it might be seen as a distraction of the matter at
>> >hand: serving the galaxy. A Jedi with a love and/or family might be a
>> >bit more reluctant to put his/her life on the line for any of that.
>>
>> Wait, we're not having the discussion about priests anymore. ;-)
>
>It's not really about priest, it's about militairy. In armies and esp.
>special forces its fairly known that single soldiers go further then
>those who are mated. Of course the opposite could be proven as well:
>Alexander the Great promoted inter-soldier relationships under the
>theory that someone will fighter better if its for someone he loves.
True. It can go both ways, and will probably depend upon the person. It's hard
to make gross generalizations about that. But hey, I get to quote my favorite
movie now! "One man defending his home is more powerful than *ten* hired
soldiers."
>> Um, right. So, again, perhaps fraternal love could be a driving force (and
>> should be, really, which I think what Ysanne's getting at). The good of the
>> many being put ahead of the good of the one/few.
>
>Very likely, but still the "good of the many etc" is more of a logical,
>rational reason then it is emotional.
That's debatable! We're agreeing to disagree. ;-)
Ah, conflict with the EU, is has always been there....
--Prophet Kristy
Kristy Henscheid
B
E
W
A
R
E
T
H
E
S
Q
U
I
R
R
E
L
Policrat' put forth:
>Do not underestimate the power of the Dark MindB_ender:
>
>> last thing I heard again is that
>> Mace's sabre is now violet again, not purple - lets see:)
>
>I think it's more to do with what works against a blue-screen...
Okay, I may be a girl, but I'm not *that* much of a girl. What's the freakin'
difference between violet and purple? I mean really!
For the record, I vote for lightsabre colors being individualistic. Because
uniformity is boring. ;-)
Kristy Henscheid
and on my e-mail. yeah, it sucks to be me. ;-)
MindB_ender put forth:
>Policrat' wrote:
>> Do not underestimate the power of the Dark MindB_ender:
>> > Policrat' wrote:
>> >>
>> > Strange ey? I've always had this feeling about the scene where Anakin
>> > faced the council in TPM was exactly where he went over to the
>> > darkside.... hell I would've if faced with that lot. And I've heard many
>> > people agree with that opinion, if it wasn't what Lucas wanted to show I
>> > think he misdirected it.
>>
>> Hmm... I'd just taken it that he made a major error - because, if that was
>> what he *wanted* to show, he made a major error by not making the film
>> interesting enough...
Uh.....yeah.
>I'm not sure if I agree wih that... personally I rate the quality of TPM
>higher then that of RotJ, especially storywise. RotJ is a rushjob
>smacking everything one upon the other so everyone could get a break
>from star wars as quickly as possible. In many ways TPM is more
>interesting because it shows more of the SW universe then the whole of
>the old trilogy. But yes, taste is something not easily disputed.
True, true. As for my two cred's worth, yes, I did like TPM. but it had nearly
zero plot. GL has very little good writing ability. But throw in some good
lightsabre moves, a buff chick with awesome costumes, and I'll be entertained
enough.
>> Remember, the Council *do* decide to train Anakin...
>
>After QG twisted their arm and it was already more fact then they could
>deny. The council was forced to let Kenobi train Anakin - if they'd had
>their way Anakin would've been some Jedi's luggageboy for the rest of
>his life.
And they obviously don't keep as close tabs on the training process as they
should....or things never would have gotten screwed up so badly. If the Council
had done the smart thing, they'd have their most experienced Jedi train Anakin,
not a fresh-out-of-Padawanism-Knight.
>> True... but I'm afraid the AotC trailers haven't given me much
>> encouragement...
Along the same lines as "what I loved about TPM", the trailer have actually made
me quite excited, because I think the movie will be cool and entertaining on
that level. But I don't anticipate the storyline being all that and a bag of
chips.
>Well he can always add a very long and boring explaining session in Ep3,
>like he did with RotJ.... knowing him he'll have too because what he
>wants to say just doesn't fit this one trilogy, just like the last time.
>Oh well, that might end up good for us if he decides to do a 3rd set
>afterall to tie up the loose ends (and create more...) :)
As much as I'd love there to be even more SW-that-I've-never-ever-seen-before, I
really don't want to see 7,8,9 made. We're already having enough EU conflicts
as it is. sequels to the original trilogy would be a nightmare. Either you
ignore that EU and do something totally different, or you follow the UE but in
no way do it justice.
--Prophet Kristy
being opinionated
Kristy Henscheid
>MindB_ender schrieb:
>
>> In ESB we got the asian Wes Janson and various other non-white rebels,
>
>Really? Where? (that's a serious question, I haven't watched the movies for
>years)
>That Wes is Asian or Asian-looking isn't very obvious and escaped most
>people (including me and the EU authors), and I doubt that it was
>intentional.
He's pulling your leg, Petra. Ian Liston is as Caucasian as I am.
>> before that we got some kind of Calamari in the SWHS Fett-cartoon, women
>> are also quite common in rebel forces (leia prime example, mon
>> mothma...). In RotJ you get the Sullustians, the Calamari etc. And
>
>But Leia and Mon Mothma are political leaders, no military leaders. With the
>exception of ROTJ the Rebell military is as white male dominated as the
>Imperial military, and aliens are only added to the movies for exotic
>reasons, but don't seem to be a part of the civil war at all.
Yes, yes, yes. And if I may point out again: Leia and Mon Mothma are the *only*
women, period. That's an exception, not a rule.
But I should also say that I've never taken the race/gender makeup of SW as
being equivalent to what we see in the movies, for the unavoidable fact that
1970s Earth is too much a part of it.
>> too in at least ESB and aliens by the time of RotJ... the fact that this
>> was done by choice points out that it has a reason. I think it had more
>
>At that time it was done by choice, in that point I agree with you. But I
>very much doubt that it was GL's plan from the very beginning. If he'd
>wanted to show the racism and chauvinism of the Empire, the Rebel forces
>would have had more women, aliens, and non-whites from the very beginning,
>budget reasons or not. Later GL apparently realized that the Rebellion
>should be more liberal, including more parts of the population.
I completely agree! Yay Petra!
>> shooting in the UK at the time. The moment the budget restraints were
>> dropped some more - aliens, females and non-white humans were added to
>> the rebellion and not to the empire.
>
>In ROTJ, yes. But if that had been something that was important to GL from
>the very beginning, he would have done it in ANH and TESB, too. Budget
>reasons aren't a great excuse.
Absolutely.
--Prophet Kristy
Kristy Henscheid
>MindB_ender schrieb:
>
>> the EU authors didn't look further then "good shot Janson" and based a
>> complete new character on that - a good character ok... but not fitting
>> the ESB-wes except that he can shoot very well.
>
>Well, there wasn't anything else to base the character on. Wes is barely
>visible in ESB, and I very much doubt that the SW people paid any attention
>to how he and the other minor characters and extras looked like when they
>casted them. They needed someone who was available and probably cheap,
>that's it..
Ayup! Which is also how DL got in. And thank the Maker for that!
>Right, and I don't doubt that. My point is that I don't think that it was
>GL's intention from the very start to show a white male dominated (and
>therefore racistic and chauvenistic) Empire in contrast to a multicultural
>Rebellion. I'm sure he approves of this interpretation, and in ROTJ he
>certainly used this approach, but not before.
I entirely agree. There's no evidence of intent here, and every indication of
not really thinking about it, but rather casting whoever was available.
>> Yes, but that's in your particular culture - it doesn't say much about
>> world-wide and especially not for different galaxies;)
>
>That wasn't my point. In the 70s, when ANH was filmed, and in some places
>even now, male soldiers are considered normal, and female soldiers are
>something special. So if you have female soldiers in a movie, it probably
>was done intentionally, to make a point, while having only male soldiers
>might be something that just happened, without the filmmaker trying to make
>a point of it. So you can have an all-male army to show the chauvinism of
>the government, but you can also have it just for the reason that it is
>normal in your country/your culture.
Petra, you're reading my mind!
--Prophet Kristy
perhaps I should have just posted a big resounding YES!
Kristy Henscheid
>Petra Genske wrote:
>> MindB_ender schrieb:
>>
>> > the EU authors didn't look further then "good shot Janson" and based a
>> > complete new character on that - a good character ok... but not fitting
>> > the ESB-wes except that he can shoot very well.
>>
>> Well, there wasn't anything else to base the character on. Wes is barely
>> visible in ESB, and I very much doubt that the SW people paid any attention
>> to how he and the other minor characters and extras looked like when they
>> casted them. They needed someone who was available and probably cheap,
>> that's it..
>
>I wholeheartedly agree. Is the guy in the RS computer game the film
>Janson (yes, I'm a no-movie-just-books addict, too)? If yes, then either
>the colours are totally off, or the guy playing Janson is a white guy
>with a somewhat chubby face (at least in that helmet).
Which can definitely be said of Ian Liston. Who, I reiterate, is not Asian as
far as I can tell.
>I don't even think this whole racism idea (because of the lack of
>non-white non-males) occured to him at first. I mean, the people around
>him, the ones he worked with, were mostly white males...
yesyes!
>> So you can have an all-male army to show the chauvinism of
>> the government, but you can also have it just for the reason that it is
>> normal in your country/your culture.
>
>And how normal were women in the US army in the 70s? Not really.
Egggs-actly.
>Thanks again Petra.
::evil grin:: I could make a comment about the gender makeup of each side of
this argument, but I leave it to your powers of observation. ;-)
--Prophet Kristy
Josh Nolan
Kristy Henscheid wrote:
> --Prophet Kristy
> not a feminist, but all about Girl Power in SW fandom (notice there are more
> girls here on AFW?)
It's the wanted poster. :)
Josh.
--
There's a pomegranate up your blurter.
- T.I.S.M.
Ysanne
Josh Nolan wrote:
>
> Kristy Henscheid wrote:
>
> > --Prophet Kristy
> > not a feminist, but all about Girl Power in SW fandom (notice there are more
> > girls here on AFW?)
>
> It's the wanted poster. :)
>
> Josh.
> --
No, it's the wingman. ;)
Ysanne
Kristy Henscheid
>
>Apologies in advance if I repeat anything that's already been said - I haven't been around lately so I'm very
>much a latecomer to this discussion :>
I'm doing the same thing to catch up for the last week that I've been traveling
and scrambling to get schoolwork done! (There's almost a whole page of posts by
me on Newsranger. Yipes. I was really behind, and I'm an opinionated bitch.)
>To get a better feel for representation in the rebel forces I'd suggest looking at:
>ANH:
> The Yavin pilot's briefing room scene
> The medal presentation ceremony
>ESB:
> The Hoth pilot's briefing room scene
> Exterior shots of the Hoth ground battle
>RotJ:
> The briefing scene on Home One
> Various shots of the commando force which assaults the shield bunker
>
>These are the only scenes I can think which might portray a feel for the "common grunt" of the Rebellion. I
>have no idea what conclusions would be drawn from such an inspection, btw. It's not something that
>particularly interests me - generally, attempts to draw these sorts of inferences say a lot more about the
>person drawing the inference than they do about the person responsible for the piece being analysed.
Good point, that. I still have the feeling that GL doesn't think about this
nearly as hard as we do. ;-)
--Prophet Kristy
almost there!
Wayne Farmer
<khen...@duck.uoregon.edu> writes
>Oh, now you've done it, I'm going to get opinionated on the whole race/gender
>thing in SW. look out below. ;-)
>
>MindB_ender put forth:
>>Petra Genske wrote:
>>> MindB_ender wrote:
>>>
>>> Besides, throughout the movies the Rebels are mainly male and white,
>>> too. Granted, they have female leaders (political leaders, not
>>> military), but that's it. Only in ROTJ we see a few non-humans among
>>> them, and I guess that's only because GL got aware of the political
>>> correctness thing.
>>
>>In ESB we got the asian Wes Janson
>
>Asian Wes Janson? Um, I don't think so....AFAIK Ian Liston is British...
>
Yep he is and not Asian in anyway, if you don't believe me why not e-
mail him and ask him.
__ __ __ __ ___ __ __ _ __ __
|__)| || _ | ||_ (__ | || ||__|| \|__)| ||\ |
_____| \|__||__||__||________)|_\||__|| ||_ /| \|__|| \|______
| |
| M-3PO, Quartermaster |
| Website: http://www.yavin-4.demon.co.uk |
| E-mail: Wedge_A...@yavin-4.demon.co.uk |
| ICQ: 49663304 |
|___________________ ___ __ __ _ __ ___________________|
| |__)|__|| \ | |\ || _
| | \| ||_ / | | \||__|
Policrat'
> Policrat' put forth:
>> Do not underestimate the power of the Dark Knight:
>>> "MindB_ender" <A.C.W.T...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL> wrote in message
>>> news:3BF68A6C...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL...
>
> Um, possible spoilers for EpII trailers. I think. Anyway, be careful!
>
> i
> '
> m
>
> b
> a
> c
> k
> !
>
>
>>> I think that EU defence is so people don't rant so much. Basically, we have
>>> to accept what is in the movies as cannon, however fans grate over Greedo
>>> shooting first (another character who's very confusing thanks to the EU).
>>
>> No! We *don't* have to accept that!
>
> That's right! We're rabid fans, we should be allowed to denounce utter crap
> when we see it!!
*Exactly!*
> (praying for original tril DVDs with the option of seeing SE *or* original.
> ha,ha,ha.)
Um... PK's gone bonkers...
>>>>> Its been stated often that Corellian Jedi ran things very differently to
>>>>> those Jedi back at the ranch...temple...whatever :)
>>>>
>>>> Ahh... and where was this stated? Actually - where do we see a Corellian
>>>> Jedi?
>
> Um, stuff that Mike wrote. Again you get the EU vs. canon argument....not
> going there...
Why not... all you need to say is "Exar Kun was George's idea" and the watch
the canonites explode...
>> Aye... I'd always assumed that there was a big contrast between the
>> metropolitan Jedi in the Temple and the more 'rough-and-ready' Jedi on the
>> Rim...
>
> Cool idea, Pol'. I like it! After all, it's one thing to make the rules,
> another to actually practice them or see which ones need to be bent in the
> Real World.
Yeah... that was part of it... it was also that humanity *is* fallible...
>>> Some accounts state that Yoda lived a primarily solitary life, alomst a
>>> hermit. Explains how he survived his self-imposed exile on Dagobah without
>>> going balmy.
>>
>> Yeah...
>
> Um, you're talking about Yoda. By definition he's balmy! (Frank Oz!)
Waywa Fybot...
>> Except that the Dark *doesn't* "dominate their destint"... are we supposed
>> to think that's what happens to Luke after his brief fttDS aboard the DS2?
>> The whole point of what Luke does, IMHO, is that he shows that it's possible
>> to just *walk away*...
>
> And ObEwan, for that matter. ;-)
Aye... the DS happens when people *care*, you notice...
>> Alternatively, since there's no EU account of how Jaster Mereel 'became'
>> Boba Fett, it's entirely possible that the original Fett did a "Dread Pirate
>> Roberts"...
>
> ::giggle:: That would be Very cool! "I'll most likely kill you in the
> morning."
Well, Fenn Shysa *did* look far more like Cary Elwes than a Maori...
>> No... because there are too many unacceptable differences between the
>> Prequels and the OT...
>
> The really annoying thing is, it's GL's continuity and he can contradict if if
> he wants to. ;-) (I still hold that he doesn't seem to care much about
> continuity, he just wants to make merchandising money so he can use the latest
> digital gizmos regardless of whether they actually add to the film or not...)
I think he cares... it's just that his tastes have got a lot camper since
1977... =)
>>> But finally, thank you. Its been far too long since I've debated Star Wars
>>> with someone in such an enjoyable fashion.
>
> See why I Love this thread? :o)
=>
> --Prophet Kristy
Pol'
Policrat'
Sensible...
>>>> Anyway, why compare the Jedi to a religious order? IMO, they're not.
>>>> They are more like a martial arts school for the very gifted, training
>>>> Force-sensitive people to think clearly despite their emotions, and
>>>> don't do harm unintentionally.
>>>
>>> Various people like Tarkin, Solo and Tagge inside the GFFA seem to see
>>> it as a religion (from memory: "...your sad devotion to that ancient
>>> religion..." - tagge "...i find your lack of faith disturbing..." -
>>> vader (note "faith") "...hokey religions and ancient weapons..." -
>>> han...). The rebels seem to believe in the same religion... where a Jedi
>>> would be a priest or monk I gather and the rebels just the lay-men. That
>>> this religion comes with an infinite "deus ex machina" is just the
>>> fantasy aspect of star wars i guess:)
>>
>> Aye... I always took the Jedi to be a military order, like the Templars...
>
> They certainly seem to be! And besides--the Templars! yay!
Yippee!
> (/me reads too much Katherine Kurtz. Wait, there's no such thing!)
Who?
At this point, I'll randomly recommend William Watson's "The Last of the
Templars"... perhaps *the* best novel about the Middle Ages I've read...
>>>>> And here's a thought: we're thinking of the Jedi in terms of the monastic
>>>>> poverty, chastity, obedience vows. Hey, since when was Qui-Gon obedient
>>>>> to
>>>>> the order?? They were exasperated with him....but they didn't kick him
>>>>> out.
>>>>
>>>> Nor does poverty seem to be enforced - just look at the Jedi Council's
>>>> room.
>>>
>>> Look at the vatican, or any other major temple complex... the Jedi
>>> themselves wouldn't own more then perhaps just their sabre... and this
>>> would fall to the Order again in case of death. Their "monk-like" robes
>>> would indeed point out poverty as they don't look to be very elaborate.
>>> The orderitself could then of course be far more wealthier.
>>
>> What about all the 'James Bond' gadgets in their robes...?-)
>
> :-P
>
> If you're paralleling them to the Templars, then you can have the best of both
> worlds there. The brothers themselves (The Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and
> the Temple of Solomon) are supposed to live in poverty. (Though for the
> knights, poverty is somewhat loosely definced, as they do have a horse...and
> they're not cheap) When they join, all their worldly possessions go to the
> Order. Which did get quite rich, which was the main reason they were taken
> out by King Philip le Bel.
Actually, it had rather more to do with Philip's aggressive statism, IMHO...
> --Prophet Kristy
> Templar fangirl
Pol'
Policrat'
> Oh, now you've done it, I'm going to get opinionated on the whole race/gender
> thing in SW. look out below. ;-)
>
> MindB_ender put forth:
>> Petra Genske wrote:
>>> MindB_ender wrote:
>>>
>>> Besides, throughout the movies the Rebels are mainly male and white,
>>> too. Granted, they have female leaders (political leaders, not
>>> military), but that's it. Only in ROTJ we see a few non-humans among
>>> them, and I guess that's only because GL got aware of the political
>>> correctness thing.
>>
>> In ESB we got the asian Wes Janson
>
> Asian Wes Janson? Um, I don't think so....AFAIK Ian Liston is British...
The two ain't exclusive, but aye...
>> In the empire from ANH to RotJ we see _just_ male
>> white humans, mostly with brit accents to boot. The difference was by
>> choice, or there'd be women or at least coloured humans in the empire
>> too in at least ESB and aliens by the time of RotJ... the fact that this
>> was done by choice points out that it has a reason. I think it had more
>> to do with budget then political correctness in fact, in ANH it
>> would've been too expensive to add convincing alien rebels and they were
>> shooting in the UK at the time. The moment the budget restraints were
>> dropped some more - aliens, females and non-white humans were added to
>> the rebellion and not to the empire.
>
> I don't see budget having anything to do with it...if anything women would be
> cheaper to hire. ;-) I find it more of a reflection of the times in which
> the films were made. The equality movement still getting going, more diverse
> people getting more diverse jobs, etc.
Yeah... it was originally (IMHO) just an accident of casting... after all,
Lucas had intended Kenobi to be Asian, and Han Solo came within a hair of
being black...
Admittedly, in ANH, the A-wings were going to be flown by Sullustians until
the budget got in the way... but it's surely just an accident that all the
humans in the alliance High Command, and all of Paige's Commandos, are
white...
>>> And having a military force only consisting of white men doesn't
>>> necesssary imply that you want to present them as bad and nazi-like. It
>>> might just the way you have experienced it. For example, most Germans
>>> won't probably notice anything special about soldiers being exclusively
>>> white men, because the German military didn't allow women in their ranks
>>> for a long time (it changed at the beginning of this year), and the
>>> majority of Germans are white.
>>
>> Yes this is why in ANH both sides are both still (for the rebels mostly)
>> white human male... they were shooting in '70s Europe, a time when in
>> most places in Europe coloured people were still pretty rare... and
>> overal the whole cast of SW from ANH to AtoC is still male-oriented,
>> probably because of the target audience.
>
> Okay, explain this to me. The idea is (and I don't believe it) that SW fans
> are mainly male. So why have all male characters? Why not have hot-looking
> female ones, a la Star Trek? Makes no sense...but maybe I'm just being bitter
> because it seems that Hasbro is being misogynist, every time I try to find
> Amidala figures and an unsuccessful. Okay, I'm bitter.
Aww...
> I must have deleted too much....I remember wanting to reply to a comment to
> the effect of "hey, there are girls in the Rebel Alliance. Leia and Mon
> Mothma!" But....are there any OTHER girls to be seen? NO! Why do you think I
> was so excited to see the female Naboo pilot in TPM? (I cheered.)
There's also the commscan officer at Echo Base...
> --Prophet Kristy
> not a feminist, but all about Girl Power in SW fandom (notice there are more
> girls here on AFW?)
=)
Pol'
Josh Nolan
Policrat' wrote:
> Do not underestimate the power of the Dark Kristy Henscheid:
>
> > Policrat' put forth:
> >> Do not underestimate the power of the Dark Knight:
> >>> "MindB_ender" <A.C.W.T...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL> wrote in message
> >>> news:3BF68A6C...@STUDENT.TUDelft.NL...
> >
> > Um, possible spoilers for EpII trailers. I think. Anyway, be careful!
> >
> > i
> > '
> > m
> >
> > b
> > a
> > c
> > k
> > !
> >
> >
> >>> I think that EU defence is so people don't rant so much. Basically, we have
> >>> to accept what is in the movies as cannon, however fans grate over Greedo
> >>> shooting first (another character who's very confusing thanks to the EU).
> >>
> >> No! We *don't* have to accept that!
> >
> > That's right! We're rabid fans, we should be allowed to denounce utter crap
> > when we see it!!
>
> *Exactly!*
>
> > (praying for original tril DVDs with the option of seeing SE *or* original.
> > ha,ha,ha.)
>
> Um... PK's gone bonkers...
Gone?
And you're complaining?
> >> Except that the Dark *doesn't* "dominate their destint"... are we supposed
> >> to think that's what happens to Luke after his brief fttDS aboard the DS2?
> >> The whole point of what Luke does, IMHO, is that he shows that it's possible
> >> to just *walk away*...
> >
> > And ObEwan, for that matter. ;-)
>
> Aye... the DS happens when people *care*, you notice...
But when you're responsible for the galaxy, caring for individuals *can* get in the
way.
Sad, but true. (Or, it seems to be true, but in the absence of even knowing anyone
responsible for defending this or any other galaxy, it's impossible to be sure.
True, then, in the sense that a fictional situation may be True, even if it's not
true.)
Policrat'
She was batty until recently...
> And you're complaining?
What gives you that idea?
>>>> Except that the Dark *doesn't* "dominate their destint"... are we supposed
>>>> to think that's what happens to Luke after his brief fttDS aboard the DS2?
>>>> The whole point of what Luke does, IMHO, is that he shows that it's
>>>> possible
>>>> to just *walk away*...
>>>
>>> And ObEwan, for that matter. ;-)
>>
>> Aye... the DS happens when people *care*, you notice...
>
> But when you're responsible for the galaxy, caring for individuals *can* get
> in the way.
>
> Sad, but true. (Or, it seems to be true, but in the absence of even knowing
> anyone responsible for defending this or any other galaxy, it's impossible to
> be sure. True, then, in the sense that a fictional situation may be True, even
> if it's not true.)
The question is, of course, *what* is the Dark Side, and *why* is it bad?
> Josh.
> --
> There's a pomegranate up your blurter.
> - T.I.S.M.
Ehh?
Pol'
Allison K. East
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 22:09:37 +0100, "Petra Genske" <petra....@online.de> wrote:
> > MindB_ender schrieb:
> >
>
> >
> > even now, male soldiers are considered normal, and female soldiers are
> > something special. So if you have female soldiers in a movie, it probably
> > was done intentionally, to make a point, while having only male soldiers
> > might be something that just happened, without the filmmaker trying to make
> > a point of it. So you can have an all-male army to show the chauvinism of
> > the government, but you can also have it just for the reason that it is
> > normal in your country/your culture.
> > If the first were true in the case of ANH, I would expect a sharper contrast
> > between Rebel and Imperial forces.
>
> I have a feeling that link I gave above is a little tangential to the current discussion, which seems to be
> whether or not GL _intended from the start_ for the "superior race" idea to be part of the Imperial
> philosophy. Without being able to get inside the man's head, from what I've read/seen about the making of Star
> Wars, I'd tend to favour Petra's opinion. With ANH (and, to some degree, ESB), Lucas wasn't setting out to
> make any sort of political or philosophical point - he was out to tell a 'ripping good yarn'. Later on, with
> RotJ (and, some would say, the switch from Gary Kurtz to Rick McCallum as producer), the social engineering
> side of the LFL began to get into gear, and, from that point on, I'd be quite willing to believe that there
> _is_ a hidden agenda (albeit, not necessarily one that belongs to GL).
Like Nick said, we'll never know if GL intended the Imperialistic
"superior"
xenophobic view from the start, but when I was studying Modern History
this
year, I noticed that there was a lot of parallels between the Empire
and 20th
century Germany (not just the Nazi years either). Some of the
parallels were
so obvious that they would make me giggle (nothing like doing some
serious, examinable study and cracking up because of a SW reference to
make your class mates think you have lost it. Especially if they don't
happen to be SW fans).
Alli
Kristy Henscheid
>Do not underestimate the power of the Dark Kristy Henscheid:
>> Policrat' put forth:
(snipping of spoiler material....it's safe now!)
>>
>> (snip Catholic priests discussion. I may be a Catholic, but I'm not clear on
>> all the rules, so I'm not even going to stick my neck out on that.)
>
>Sensible...
At times, I do try to be. ;-)
>>> Aye... I always took the Jedi to be a military order, like the Templars...
>>
>> They certainly seem to be! And besides--the Templars! yay!
>
>Yippee!
:-D
>> (/me reads too much Katherine Kurtz. Wait, there's no such thing!)
>
>Who?
Katherine Kurtz. cool historical fantasy. And my favorite author, I might add.
>At this point, I'll randomly recommend William Watson's "The Last of the
>Templars"... perhaps *the* best novel about the Middle Ages I've read...
Noted. I'll look for it!
>> If you're paralleling them to the Templars, then you can have the best of both
>> worlds there. The brothers themselves (The Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and
>> the Temple of Solomon) are supposed to live in poverty. (Though for the
>> knights, poverty is somewhat loosely definced, as they do have a horse...and
>> they're not cheap) When they join, all their worldly possessions go to the
>> Order. Which did get quite rich, which was the main reason they were taken
>> out by King Philip le Bel.
>
>Actually, it had rather more to do with Philip's aggressive statism, IMHO...
Well, there was definitely more than one reason, and what was really the main
one was argumable. (they wouldn't let Philip join, so he got pouty. Etc.)
--Prophet Kristy
off topic! wheee!