Star Wars: The Force Awakens [** SPOILERS FROM POST 4472 ONWARD **]

david75

Daddy issues. Clearly. And maybe not all that understandably by the lights

david75

Falthyron wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQdDRrcAOjA

Vader is like Trump, just making jobs and trying to tackle to unemployment crisis.

I effing love that whole scene

Cantona's Collars

Oafley Jones

Jon Stark wrote: »

The Incredible Hulk would be another example, where Marvel Studios are cautious about ever doing another solo outing.

They've also got issue of Universals distribution rights when it come to the Hulk. Hulk as a supporting role does seem like a smart use of the character.

stevenmu

david75 wrote: »

Luke has always sort of been on the dark side.

How many innocent people died on the death star?(contractors, civil servants etc) How many innocent people died on jabbas barge? (Slaves, prisoners, party goers)

And not a backward glance of thought did he give. Perhaps we're seeing it all the wrong way and he was evil the whole time and Vader was just trying to bring peace and order to the Galaxy?

Since the prequel trilogy, and all the talk about prophecy and bringing balance to the force, I've thought the same thing.

He tries to do good and to help, but he is also driven by anger and pain. Depending on perspective, he is both a rebel hero helping to end the totalitarian regime of a fascist and evil empire, and a terrorist leader bringing chaos and war to an ordered and peaceful galaxy.


Luke isn't light or dark, he is both, hence the balance.

Falthyron

stevenmu wrote: »

Since the prequel trilogy, and all the talk about prophecy and bringing balance to the force, I've thought the same thing.

He tries to do good and to help, but he is also driven by anger and pain. Depending on perspective, he is both a rebel hero helping to end the totalitarian regime of a fascist and evil empire, and a terrorist leader bringing chaos and war to an ordered and peaceful galaxy.


Luke isn't light or dark, he is both, hence the balance.

Luke didn't bring balance to the Force. It was Anakin. It has always been Anakin.

Myrddin

david75 wrote: »

Perhaps we're seeing it all the wrong way and he was evil the whole time and Vader was just trying to bring peace and order to the Galaxy?

stevenmu wrote: »

he is both a rebel hero helping to end the totalitarian regime of a fascist and evil empire, and a terrorist leader bringing chaos and war to an ordered and peaceful galaxy

You both seen Star Wars yeah? Y'know, the film where the Death Star is swanning around destroying entire planets?

david75

Yeah to destroy planets terrorists were based on aka the rebel alliance.

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter n all that


As if Lucas had the wisdom to add that layer of depth to it all

Clareman

Anakin brought balance by leaving it with 2 of each, Darth Vader threw it into imbalance by killing 1 of the Jedi, Luke brought it completely into imbalance by becoming a Jedi Master while destroying the 2 Sith, the force is completely out of balance but Luke is able to communicate with the ghosts of 3 powerful Jedi (Anakin, Obi Wan and Yoda) so we can assume Qui Qon is there as well so Luke might be just communicating with them deciding on the best way to proceed, as Yoda and Obi Wan showed they are well able to sit back and wait.

david75

Off Topic question.

The scene in ROTS when Anakin kills the Jedi kids in the temple. A pal reckons that was heavily edited, there was a lot more in the theatrical release that was edited out by a he time it got to DVD.

Anyone remember? I seem to remember that sequence having more to it than is in the DVD version

Overheal

not in my recollection, they just showed him activate his saber to the kid and that was the scene.

Anakin is indeed to the one who brought balance to the Force. Later on in the now defunct canon from what I understand, Luke was a 'balanced' force user, keeping both light and dark impulses in proper balance, and in the trilogy this is true of how he fights: at Bespin he's possessive of his friends and acts out violently toward Vader. On the Death Star, he keeps his anger in check but it is still powerful enough that it is felt by and relished by Darth Sidious. The idea being that as a Jedi got more powerful with the force, they in turn were more powerful in the dark and the light side.

thegreengoblin

david75 wrote: »

Off Topic question.

The scene in ROTS when Anakin kills the Jedi kids in the temple. A pal reckons that was heavily edited, there was a lot more in the theatrical release that was edited out by a he time it got to DVD.

Anyone remember? I seem to remember that sequence having more to it than is in the DVD version

Fairly sure it was the exact same edit in both editions. It would have been beyond the pale for a Star Wars film to show someone actually killing young children...assuming that's what you mean by 'a lot more'. Although clearly young teenagers were not off limits judging by the subsequent scene with Bail Organa and the clonetroopers.

The other thing I remember is that Anakin was equally unscary and unconvincing in both editions too!

Falthyron

Clareman wrote: »

Anakin brought balance by leaving it with 2 of each, Darth Vader threw it into imbalance by killing 1 of the Jedi, Luke brought it completely into imbalance by becoming a Jedi Master while destroying the 2 Sith, the force is completely out of balance but Luke is able to communicate with the ghosts of 3 powerful Jedi (Anakin, Obi Wan and Yoda) so we can assume Qui Qon is there as well so Luke might be just communicating with them deciding on the best way to proceed, as Yoda and Obi Wan showed they are well able to sit back and wait.

Not all of the Jedi were killed when Order 66 was executed. Anakin was to bring balance to the force by removing the shadow of the Sith that had managed to creep up and overwhelm the Jedi - this is clear when Windu says how could the Jedi have been so blind. Anakin was both Jedi and Sith. He destroyed (for the most part) the Jedi and eventually destroyed the Sith. Luke isn't the one who brought balance, he simply reminded Anakin of his origins, of who he was. Until Darth Vader threw Sidious into the Death Star, Anakin's prophecy was unfulfilled. All remnants of the Jedi and Sith were removed the moment he and Sidious died, thus leaving Luke in the precarious position of 'where do we go from here?'.

If anyone has played the game Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast, you will know that the character of Kyle Katarn is very similar to Luke. He is someone who is force sensitive and utilises the force, but doesn't really adhere to the code of the Jedi Order. Luke knows nothing of the Jedi Order as we know from the prequels, i.e. no relationships, fear, etc. He isn't taught any of these things (that we know of), so when Anakin brings balance by destroying the Sith after having removed all Jedi, Luke really is in a new position with the battle between Jedi and Sith now over.

bnt

If you have kids in to Star Wars, and they're all excited about the movie ... why not get them a Star Wars birthday cake?





:eek:

Clareman

Falthyron wrote: »

Not all of the Jedi were killed when Order 66 was executed. Anakin was to bring balance to the force by removing the shadow of the Sith that had managed to creep up and overwhelm the Jedi - this is clear when Windu says how could the Jedi have been so blind. Anakin was both Jedi and Sith. He destroyed (for the most part) the Jedi and eventually destroyed the Sith. Luke isn't the one who brought balance, he simply reminded Anakin of his origins, of who he was. Until Darth Vader threw Sidious into the Death Star, Anakin's prophecy was unfulfilled. All remnants of the Jedi and Sith were removed the moment he and Sidious died, thus leaving Luke in the precarious position of 'where do we go from here?'.

My take on it was that during the Clone Wars the Jedi were down in numbers and all were called to duty, Order 66 picked off most of them but then Darth Vader picked off as many as he could during the Civil War which left 2 Jedi and 2 Sith. This doesn't include Force sensitive folk like Luke.

Wedwood

Looking at some of these posts reminds how the Prequels diminished the Star Wars 'folklore'. JarJar aside, Midichlorians was a terrible idea, as was bringing 'balance to the Force', 'the Prophecy' and finally 'the Rule of Two'.

In the Originals, the Force was an ethereal and mysterious thing, the prequels invented Midichlorians which dumbed down the Force into something you could measure in a blood test.

In the Originals, there were no limits set on how many Jedis or Sith there could be, where as the Prequels invented the rule of two to explain why there was only Darth Vader and the Emperor in TESB and ROTJ.

Actually, in ROTJ, the Emperor was sneering at Luke's 'Jedi weapon, much like your Father's'. At that stage the Sith didn't use lightsabers and instead used the Dark side to make the altogether more powerful 'force lightning'. Another thing the Prequels dumbed down.

Actually, the more Episode 7 ignores from the Prequels, the better !

.ak

Clareman wrote: »

My take on it was that during the Clone Wars the Jedi were down in numbers and all were called to duty, Order 66 picked off most of them but then Darth Vader picked off as many as he could during the Civil War which left 2 Jedi and 2 Sith. This doesn't include Force sensitive folk like Luke.

My take on it was the force, quite like "Mother Nature", looks to cull the numbers of something if it grows too large. My feeling is the prophecy refers to this, and that anakin was supposed to wipe all the Jedi/sith down to 0, as their numbers had grown too large and became a power in universal politics, so anakin reset the clock, and everything restarts with Luke.

Manach

Currently I am reading "How Star Wars Conquered the Universe" by Chris Taylor. A good read. He mentions that Midichlorian were a belated attempt to inject some science into the vagueness of Jedi-ism. There is also a very interesting look on the numerous re-writes of the original Star Wars scripts, things could have been so very different.

david75

I want this more than any man my age should. My dog would kill it though probably

Ridley

Personally, I feel the mind that produced the prequels' sillier aspects more respectable than the one which saw the original trilogy and more or less hit copy/paste for VII. Not that a great copy can't win out against inferior originality.

Hope we get to see what Lucas' outline for the sequels was some day.

.ak wrote: »

My take on it was the force, quite like "Mother Nature", looks to cull the numbers of something if it grows too large. My feeling is the prophecy refers to this, and that anakin was supposed to wipe all the Jedi/sith down to 0, as their numbers had grown too large and became a power in universal politics, so anakin reset the clock, and everything restarts with Luke.

The (now non-canon for what that's worth) Darth Plagueis novel suggests that the Force brought Anakin Skywalker into the world to counteract Plagueis' meddling with life/death.

I do think the general idea is that you can't have good without bad and too much of either will upset things.

faceman

david75 wrote: »

I want this more than any man my age should. My dog would kill it though probably

I was going to get one last night here in the US until I realised it would serve no purpose other than to show people "hey look what I got". They're $149.

Then again I've no kids so if you had its easier to justify!

faceman

Ridley wrote: »

Personally, I feel the mind that produced the prequels' sillier aspects more respectable than the one which saw the original trilogy and more or less hit copy/paste for VII. Not that a great copy can't win out against inferior originality.

Hope we get to see what Lucas' outline for the sequels was some day.



The (now non-canon for what that's worth) Darth Plagueis novel suggests that the Force brought Anakin Skywalker into the world to counteract Plagueis' meddling with life/death.

I do think the general idea is that you can't have good without bad and too much of either will upset things.

This kind of over explaining I personally feel takes the magic out of movies. It's why I'm not a fan of much of the EU and the prequels (even if the prequels were good, I'd feel the same.) Remember how mystical the Alien movie was until Prometheus came along?

Ridley

faceman wrote: »

This kind of over explaining I personally feel takes the magic out of movies. It's why I'm not a fan of much of the EU and the prequels (even if the prequels were good, I'd feel the same.) Remember how mystical the Alien movie was until Prometheus came along?

There's a SW website called Eleven-ThirtyEight that went over the EU's many explanations for one thing. http://eleven-thirtyeight.com/tag/the-eu-explains/

(The new canon has already got its new explanation for the shuttle Tydirium in, and the Death Star plans are a comin' next year on screen. )

I like Prometheus despite thinking it's a subpar film and a crappy Alien movie. Never been a fan of the Xenomorph being a weapon, it's far more interesting to me as an animal just doing what it does to survive.

With the SW prequels, I like the ideas despite the execution. So far with the VII stuff: different R2-D2, different coloured Threepio limb, different Tatooine, different Hoth, different Endor, different Empire, different Rebellion, different stormtroopers, different Darth Vader, different Death Star.

Tony EH

Ridley wrote: »

I like Prometheus despite thinking it's a subpar film and a crappy Alien movie. Never been a fan of the Xenomorph being a weapon, it's far more interesting to me as an animal just doing what it does to survive.

Not to derail the thread, but yeh...this. The idea of using something as a "weapon" that's more dangerous (not to mention completely unpredictable) than your opponent is just about as ridiculous an idea as I can imagine.

Scott has form with shoehorning bad ideas into his pictures, though. Deckard "being" a replicant is pretty stupid too. But that's another thread.

Red King

Boba Fett lives.

Absolam

Tony EH wrote: »

Scott has form with shoehorning bad ideas into his pictures, though. Deckard "being" a replicant is pretty stupid too. But that's another thread.

You should definitely try the book.

Tony EH

I read the book years ago.

Not a replicant. :P

Absolam

Tony EH wrote: »

I read the book years ago.

Not a replicant. :P

I think Mr Dick would be sorely vexed at your assuredness

Tony EH

Um...Deckard is most definitely a human in 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep'. He even takes the VK test to prove it. He even takes the Voigt-Kampff test to prove it, because he feels that he is losing his empathy.

Absolam

Tony EH wrote: »

Um...Deckard is most definitely a human in 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep'. He even takes the VK test to prove it. He even takes the Voigt-Kampff test to prove it, because he feels that he is losing his empathy.

I think you're right so... it's definitely another thread