Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[Uxi]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

Not really; its mostly that Yoda's telling Anakin to let go of the only person he truly loves, even if she dies....

Everyone dies eventually. As William Wallace points out, the only difference is how and why.

Obi-Wan paints anyone who believes in absolutes as equivalents to the Sith!

It was a peculiar line since the Jedi do believe in absolutes ("once you start down the dark path..."), but the context is what's important. A Jedi isn't going to start a fight over it. The Sith will exterminate anyone who doesn't conform.

Course, it could just be Obi-wan's Jedi decadence speaking.

Anakin deserved to be called on the carpet by Kenobi, but for his actions, not some hypocritical law that Obi-Wan doesn't even keep.

They didn't kinda mess that up. Vader tells Luke in VI that Obi-wan once thought the same way (when Luke asks him to come with him). It should have been more of that, which we didn't really see any of. Maybe it got cut.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

...and anyway, why can't the Jedi have a religious view that would be ecumenical by our standards? Why do they have to be exclusively "space Christians" or "space Buddhists" or "space Hindus", in order to be logically consistent?

Well, the shortest reason is because there's a core principle to all logic called the Law of Non-Contradiction, which says that no two ideas can be equally true in the same sense, and at the same time. According to this logic principle, truth and falsehood cannot simulateneously be right; in effect, they'd cancel each other out. I once heard it put this way...

"Any man who denies the Law of Non-Contradiction should be beaten and burned, until he admits that being beaten is not the same as not being beaten, and that to be burned is not the same as not being burned."

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

Well, the shortest reason is because there's a core principle to all logic called the Law of Non-Contradiction, which says that no two ideas can be equally true in the same sense, and at the same time. According to this logic principle, truth and falsehood cannot simulateneously be right; in effect, they'd cancel each other out. I once heard it put this way...

"Any man who denies the Law of Non-Contradiction should be beaten and burned, until he admits that being beaten is not the same as not being beaten, and that to be burned is not the same as not being burned."

Ayn Rand quotes notwithstanding, I don't agree with you that the two ideas in question are contradictions, unless they are badly taken out of context. I think you are misconstruing Obi-Wan's use of the term "absolute": a better choice of words might have been "ultimatum". Anakin's ultimatum, "either you're with me, or you're my enemy", is Sith; anyone who would make such an ultimatum, is doing evil.

We live in a world of both absolutes and of gray abstractions, it's not "one or the other". If you're not a fan of Eastern philosophy, that's cool; but if so, then Star Wars might not be for you.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

Yeah, exactly. The Jedi have fallen from their original harmony with the force, and become self-righteous dogmatists. The Jedi are flawed, that's how they are meant to be portrayed.

Obi-Wan Kenobi: You have allowed this dark lord to twist your mind, until now, until now you've become the very thing you swore to destroy.
Anakin Skywalker: Don't lecture me, Obi-Wan! I see through the lies of the Jedi. I do not fear the dark side as you do. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.
Obi-Wan Kenobi: Your new Empire?
Anakin Skywalker: Don't make me kill you.
Obi-Wan Kenobi: Anakin, my allegiance is to the Republic, to democracy.
Anakin Skywalker: If you're not with me, then you're my enemy.
Obi-Wan Kenobi: [realizing that Anakin is consumed by evil and there's no reasoning with him anymore] Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
[draws his lightsaber]
Obi-Wan Kenobi: I will do what I must.
Anakin Skywalker: You will try.
[draws his lightsaber and confronts Obi-Wan]

Source - IMDb

[STARKILLER--1138]

Originally Posted by Indyjones

I've known and have come across it a few times. But, just in case....

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/con...irvin-kershner

I remember seeing Kersh talk about it as well. It might be on the dvd's. It's been a looooonng time since I watched those docs, so I can't remember if it was there or not.

Awesome, thanks for the link Indy. I must be blind though because I can't see where Lucas asked Kersh for approval. Will defninitely have to check out the special features on the DVD's. I think you're right. Maybe it is on Empire.

Great article though. My favorite comment from Kersh:

But nobody knows the subject better than George, so if this is what he feels it needs, that's it.

[#Darren]

Irvin Kershner, the only GOOD Star Wars director.

[dvdmike]

[Dynamo of Eternia]

So, here's a question that I have that has come up as a result of the Prequels adding what (to me) was a very unexpected and somewhat contradictory lair to things. (Mind you, I don't have a great knowledge of "EU", so if some official explanation of this has been revealed somewhere outside of the movies, I haven't seen it/read it).

In the Original Trilogy (all versions, the changes in the films later on don't change this), Leia is a Princess. Within the movie, no real explanation was ever given as to what makes her a "Princess," but I used to always think of it as being similar to our own forms of "Royalty" here on Earth, where people are essentially born into Royalty and are a prince or princess and become a King or Queen down the road due to their heritage (and typically people of Royalty are rather rich).

Other things stated in the movies seem to support this (at least IMO they do). Han refers to Leia using terms like "Your Worshipfulness", and in A New Hope, Luke talks Han into helping rescue her in the first place by saying that since she is a Princess she is rich and he would likely be well rewarded for his efforts.



But then, in the Prequels, the Queen is an elected position. Now, while that comes with a certain level of presteige and probably pays well, it is still a limited time thing (with what seems to be more similarities to being elected President of the United States than with real traditional Royalty situations). And while it may pay well, I wouldn't think that the person in power would have the same kind of extreme wealth that we traditionally associate with Royalty and that Luke seems to suggest the Princess would have access to.

Now, I realize (or at least assume) that regardless of this, Leia being a "Princess" likely has little or nothing to do with the fact that Padme was a Queen at one point, in part because of the Queen being an elected position, and in part because Leia is adopted by Bale Organa and his wife, so any "royal" attachments would be to them.

But none the less, it still raises some questions... Is Leia being a Princess in some way or another either some kind of elected position in-and-of itself? Or is her being a Princess in some way based on one or both of her adoptive parents being some kind of "elected" Royalty?

Or for that matter, does Royalty work differently on different planets, in some cases not being based on limited-term elections? Perhaps on Naboo, the Queen is a temporary elected position that someone can hold, but perhaps on Alderan (sp?) they have more traditional Royalty.


If anyone has answers to this, I'd greatly appreciate it, because this really doesn't add up to me.

I honestly wonder if Lucas intended the royalty to be based on elections when he actually made the original trilogy, or if the whole election concept was something he thought up when writing the prequels and didn't really have in mind when making the OT.

This is just one of several things that drive me nuts about the way the prequels connect to the original films. There's a lot of these kinds of details that can probably be explained in some manner so that they make sense and aren't necessarily contradictory, but the "road" that connects them is more like a "rough, gravel road" rather than the "smooth road" that could have been and that would make for a better overall story.

[DJ_NachoMan]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

Or for that matter, does Royalty work differently on different planets, in some cases not being based on limited-term elections? Perhaps on Naboo, the Queen is a temporary elected position that someone can hold, but perhaps on Alderan (sp?) they have more traditional Royalty.

You basically answered your own question there. Every planet in the Star Wars universe is as different as they come. Each has a unique alien race with unique government system and yes, some royalty. Personally, I don't have any idea how the royalty system works on Alderaan, but i can confirm that it is VASTLY different from anything they probably have on Naboo, hence the obvious differences.

I gotta say though, i never thought about this as it just seems like such a minuscule point.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

Yeah, that line just reeks of Eastern religions to me, and it doesn't work from a story point, either. Anakin's nightmares about Padme' are getting worse, he doesn't want to lose her, but he can't tell anyone about their marriage, either...so, he goes to the one who's supposedly the wisest Jedi to ever carry a lightsaber, and what's the advice given?

"Death is normal; mourning is prohibited. Don't even bother missing them, because attachment is terrible. You should never desire anything."

After mulling this stuff over, I just thought, "WHAT?!"

This is just like that "absolutes" line from Obi-Wan, which tears itself and the story apart at the same time. Anakin partially echoes Christ with the whole, "you're either with me or you're my enemy", and Kenobi accuses Anakin of being a Sith...not for his actions, but for holding any kind of absolute ideal (which all the other Jedi also do on their own). Its circular reasoning, and makes zero sense in the story.

That shouldn't be surprising since George Lucas says he was heavily influenced by Joseph Campbell, and Campbell was a new-agey type with recycled Hindu beliefs.

In regards to the "absolutes" line from Anakin: That was a direct jab at George Bush with his similar line about terrorism.

[Indyjones]

Originally Posted by STARKILLER--1138

Awesome, thanks for the link Indy. I must be blind though because I can't see where Lucas asked Kersh for approval. Will defninitely have to check out the special features on the DVD's. I think you're right. Maybe it is on Empire.

Great article though. My favorite comment from Kersh:

There might be something on the VHS SE's as well.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

But then, in the Prequels, the Queen is an elected position.

That was just political correctness from George which was not near that state back in the 70's.


Man! I remember when I first saw that line, I groaned and knew right there that these prequels were in very, very serious trouble.

Though I understand that other people will feel differently.


.

[Uxi]

Elected royalty is pretty absurd, but who says Alderaan has the same system as Naboo?

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Uxi

royalty is pretty absurd

Fixed.

[monkeyjb1988]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Epic.

[Uxi]

Gandalf seemed fine with Aragorn as king, as well as Thranduil, if not also the Nolor, to say nothing of Manwe over Arda.

[Scooby Blu]

Originally Posted by radagast

That shouldn't be surprising since George Lucas says he was heavily influenced by Joseph Campbell, and Campbell was a new-agey type with recycled Hindu beliefs.

In regards to the "absolutes" line from Anakin: That was a direct jab at George Bush with his similar line about terrorism.

Joseph Campbell did not only study Hindu myth he studied all the world's greatest myths. The book "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" is what he based Luke on.

[tilallr1]

Originally Posted by Mr.Sparkle

I'm just going to say this, when I was a little kid I was always confused who that old ghost guy was sitting next to ghost Yoda and ghost Obi-Wan. Replacing Shaw with Hayden is one of the few changes that I really like.

But not as confused as Luke when he doesn't see his father appear beside Yoda and Obi-Wan, but this kid? Luke wouldn't recognize him, so honestly the change is dumb.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Scooby Blu

Joseph Campbell did not only study Hindu myth he studied all the world's greatest myths. The book "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" is what he based Luke on.

Correct. However, the personal beliefs he espoused, esp. in The Power of Myth TV series, had some similarities to Hinduism.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by radagast

Correct. However, the personal beliefs he espoused, esp. in The Power of Myth TV series, had some similarities to Hinduism.

Radagast, worse Skywalker character - Anakin or Luke?