Haha Leo, I did not see you had posted those before I posted Plinkett! You know, watching the prequels I always knew there was something horribly wrong with the prequels and he put it into words I couldn't come up with.
Star Wars Episode VII
by Las Malvinas son Argentinas 71 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
wha happened?
sorry guys but when I think of Star Wars I think of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zWNJHS9PBE&playnext=1&list=PL8F257F7F56807F59&feature=results_video
-
Quendi
For Star Wars™ to have a successful revival, I firmly believe that George Lucas must have no significant input. He has shown that his talents do not work for the complexity this mythos deserves. I thought all along that the idea of having prequels was a bad one. Yes, they do tell the backstory, but real creativity isn’t needed since you simply “fill in the blanks” the original films had.
No, the direction to go with Star Wars™ is forward, not backward. That takes real talent and I can only hope Disney will see it that way. We don’t need to dwell on the past, but look to the future. I think one way of doing this harks back to the reaction of Cicero upon learning of the assassination of Julius Caesar: “The tyrant is dead but tyranny still lives.” The death of the Emperor doesn’t necessarily mean that the Republic would be reconstituted and everyone would live happily ever after. There would be other personalities ready and willing to move into the void created by the Emperor’s death and sit on his throne.
There is also the possibility that the Emperor’s “aura” survived the death of his body in much the same way that Obi Wan Kenobi’s did. That opens the door to all kinds of machinations he could engage in. I only hope that Lucas really and truly at least will be marginalized if not thrown under the bus so that Star Wars™ can move forward.
Quendi
-
jamesmahon
LMAS - having read your posts on this topic I think I am in love with you.
-
Leolaia
Quendi....So Ian McDiarmid might be a link to the earlier movies, as the Emperor's "aura"? That might be interesting. Whatever happened to the TV series plan? I thought that was a pretty good idea....there could be a whole host of stories to be told in that era when the Empire consolidated itself.
-
keyser soze
I hope the new ones contain more scenes of Chewbacca and R2-D2 talking amongst themselves. This is a plot device that was sorely lacking in the originals, and would really have enhanced the story.
-
elderelite
The problem with moving forward is multiple in nature....
1) the orginal triliogy was set in miji era japan... It was the age of the ronin samurai. The last of an era. I wrote an in depth examination on this that was largly ignored, but i digress.... The fact is, lucas wrote this as a parrell to japans comming of age from the samurai into the modern era. Luke was a lone hero for a reason... THATS the mythos. It dosent work moving forward. The jedi were supposed to essentially die off having restored balance to the force. The sith gone there is no need for the jedi to counter them.
2) Its also a comment (as aluded to earlier) to ww2 tyrany. Again, with the villian vanquished (the emeror/hitler) the threat is gone. Yes life moves forward and there are new threats but not movie worthy. Nobody wants to watch leia build the new repulic for 2.5 hours in committe as han solo would say.
The era of the jedi building, referanced by obi wan in the original movies as a thpusand generations of peace, offers fertile ground for stories, but goig back creates problems in tecnology and science. It will be interesting to see but its all wrought with problems.
Two story arcs that were well done in novel form are darth bane (the rise of the sith rule of two) and the lome adventures of a corrian jedi named corran horn.
-
elderelite
Warning: the following is a long winded cut and paste from another thread. I am cutting and pasting because i felt it was graduate level work that i wasnt properly appreciate for. I am submitting it here because i think this thread is much more suited for it. And i want praise.
I agree in some respects dat, but i do see it a bit differently in others. In order to understand star wars you have to look to the mythos of japan itself. Even the hero's name "Jedi" is a deriviative the historical "samurai". Their religion is a simple adapatation of zen. Also, not to be overlooked in uderstanding the first three movies is that Lucas doubted there were be sequals. He had to make star wars a new hope as a stand alone movie. It was only the phenominal success of the original that spawned the still in vouge trend of making trilogies. With that as a back drop in the original movie, a new hope, the time period was meant to mirrior the "meiji" period in japan. Meiji is considered the time when Japan was brought into the modern age after centeries of cultural isolation and rule by the shoguns. One of the most signifigant cultural changes Meiji brought to the people was the fall of the samurai as the ruling class, marked by the outlaw of carrying a sword in public. The sword known to westerners as the katanna had for hundreds of years been the symbol of a samuri. It was also the era when guns were introduced to Japan and their importance and ease of use greatly altered the culture of japan. No longer was power centered in the hands of one class. While the samurai trained in the martial arts from their youth (hand to hand *karate*, swordsmenship,archery and philosphy) to be deadly, a gun even the odds with a simple pull of the trigger.
That spawned a new mythos in Japan of the samurai who was so skilled he didnt fear guns, rather honored the traditions of the samurai and use the time honored weapons and teachings to overcome the so called advanages of guns and technology. Consider the scene where are introduced to the charachter "ben" kenobi in the dune sea. He lives as hermit (a popular theme of samurai legend, the lone warrior resistant to the change of Meiji who exsiles himself). He explains to luke that "the jedi were gardians of peace for a thousand generations before the dark time, before the empire". This a clear referance to role of the samurai in Japanees culture, gardians of peace, and the era of menji, when the infulance of european empiralisium brought the samurai to their end. Consider as well in that same scene when he intoduces Luke to the light saber and calls it " the weapon of a jedi" and refers to it as "more civilized than a blaster [or gun]". Clearly a cultural and historical nod to the role of a katanna in the life and philosphy of a samurai. That scene also plays out another traditional mythos of the samurai: the teaching of a son the ways of the samurai. In that scene the whole arc of the star wars universe is set and tied to the traditions of the samurai. We are introduced to the theme of star wars and recurant in Japanees mythos of a master teaching a student who becomes powerful and goes wayward. The teacher is discraced and banishes himself, only to be relucantly drawn into teaching a new student at the end of his life to redeem himself and bring the wayward tyrant he created to justice. Star wars further emphisises the mythos by making the student the son of the wayward tyrant. This is signifigant in Japaneese culture because the samurai were born of a class system where one could only be a saurai by birth or caste. Lukes herriate was hidden from him and revealed when the time was right to train him, thus emphising a 'birth right' to be a jedi. so, Dat dog (and anyone else interested in my huge over analyzation of star wars), with the back drop and mythos of the original movie laid out ( given that "a new hope" set the story arc and tone for all the other star wars movies) lets go back to some of your conclusions (BTW, im not suggesting you are wrong or foolish in any of these conclusions, only stating where i agree and where i see it differently). a point at a time then: "The Jedi created Vader" Yes... and no. Even in the movie, vader's role was the "wayward student". He was extremely powerful and had a world of potential but went awry and pursued his own goals instead of being a noble warrior. In the original movie that was his mythos and as noted is common among the legends and myths of the samurai. as the movies progressed he was used as a symbol of redemption (common as well for the wayward son mythos) but was a tool to allow his son to grow and shine as the pure version of what vader himself should have been. Thats the movie arc. Its debatable if, strictly speaking in a star wars sense, the jedi created vader. in the second trilogy of movies a recurring theme is that fate is inevitable. By trying to avoid creating a monster by giving anakin power (allowing him to sit on the council) they ultimately drove him to become what they feared by making him seek the power elsewhere. SO i would agree that they made vader, strictly from the second trilogy POV but disagree in the original trilogy sense in that vader was serving the role of the wayward student turned tyrant. "The problem with the Jedi faith was that they allowed fear to cloud their minds. Don't believe me? Just look at the Jedi council. The council was totally unnecessary and showed a lack of trust in the Force." Yep, i see it the same way (strictly from the POV of the second trilogy). as an aside, It is a clear reference to the idea that government becomes top heavy and cumbersome as it grows. It happened to the samurai. The feudal system in japan required an ever growing area of conquest to allow for rewards of samurai who had served faithfully an overload. it was ultimately impossible to maintain under the Tokugawa shogunate (the last family to rule as such) and the government transitioned away from the samurai as the ruling class. The second trilogy highlights much of this and the jedi council itself is shown as being ineffective because of its size and bureaucracy. Even Master Yoda was to blame. While counseling little Anakin about having fear, he was insulating himself with the council. This is a point i see a little differently. The yoda we meet in the second movie is a more mature teacher. In the second trilogy (set prior to the first three) Yoda is not fearful but rather prideful. He believes he has all the answers to the force and its mysteries and believes he understands the path to teach all who would embrace it. Once of the "hidden" facets in the movies, revealed in the books, is that jedi eschew all emotion, good or bad. The sith embrace all. The mythos becomes that in the act of forbidding all emotion the jedi have lost humanity where as the sith wallow in it and allow it to become a negative. Ankin's role becomes one of returning balance, a key tenant in the faith of the real life samurai and zen buddhist teaching. So while i agree yoda is to blame, its pride that i see, not fear. "That same council of Masters who were also fearful persecuted the only Jedi who truly trusted the living force, Qui Gong Jin. He was known for defying the council. What arrogance on the part of the council, the Governing Body of the Jedi" I agree, but again i attribute the sin of pride, not of fear. Pride that they knew better and pride that they felt qui gon had to see it their way to be valid. Fear can certainly manifest itself as unwillingness to change so its probably a small difference between us, but I see it as the arrogance you mention and not fear. "Due to their lack of faith the insisted on organizing the Jedi instead of trusting the Force. I don't have to remind you of the lives affected by their arrogance and lack of true faith. Their powerful works did not save them." again, i agree in general principle. As the emperor himself remarked (in the novels) he didnt care at all who won the clone wars, the jedi lost simply by getting involved in them in the first place. It was out of their realm and by even starting it, they lost. again, samurai mythos is involved. The samurai were the warriors and peace keepers in Japan, the heads of state and rulers. The second set of movies is recounting the samurai's fall from power as viewed from the standpoint of not being true to the tenants of their faith, first and foremost, but it can only be seen from a retrospective POV, by looking backward during or after the Meiji era. In the second set of movies we are essentially looking back after Menji to see the fall of the jedi. "A Jedi is the most powerful when they commune with the Force in isolation, helping other Jedi when the need arises, but never forming a Jedi council to impose organized communion with the Force" Again, i agree to an extent but not totally. The mythos of the jedi in the original movies was of the lone samurai after meiji, loyal to the tenants of his training DESPITE being alone, not because of it. He is portrayed as powerful because he is loyal and skilled and yes in union with the force, not because he is alone. In Samurai culture a ruling council (usually portrayed in personage of an overlord) was an absolute necessity. One cannot have an army with no leader. Here again we have to understand the movies through the eyes of the advent of the Meigi era and the moving away from the need for the samurai and to see the Samurai hold out as a lone hero although he would not have been originally. We romanticize the lone hero and the era of Meiji in Japan certainly typifies that, and since the Star Wars movies are set in that frame of reference, we ASSUME, based on our introduction to the lone jedi mythos of the star wars universe Meiji era, that jedi should operate alone, but that isn't realistic or practical with the movies intent. I do wholeheartedly agree that they were designed to look over organized and that few jedi, operating on mutual respect and feel in the force would be far more effective than an army of them micromanaged. Just a few of my vastly over analysed star wars thoughts *the meiji era is the era that immediately followed the edo era in japan. edo was the last era of the true samurai and thus from meiji onward there has been the romanticization of the samurai that i refer to -
-
Leolaia
Search & replace "Meiji" for "Menji".