StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Let's go back to May 19th 1999. My dad, great guy that he is, arranged to take me out to see Episode-I and I loved it. I took note of all the aliens and droids I could and enjoyed it. One of the things I remembered was Qiu Gon Jiin giving Anakin this line...

Star Wars wrote:"Midi-chlorians are a microscopic life form that resides within all living cells. Without the midi-chlorians, life could not exist, and we would have no knowledge of the Force. They continually speak to us, telling us the will of the Force. When you learn to quiet your mind, you'll hear them speaking to you."

Which basically said that the force has a relation to little organelles common in cells in the Star Wars universe. A minor point that I remembered, thought was cool and went on enjoying the film.

Then some time around 2006 or so I heard some people bring up what was a minor bit of trivia as a criticism of the movie. Then I saw it again and again as a frequent criticism of the film. I understood how people would not like Anakin Skywalker's potrayal or found Jar Jar Bink's annoying and agreed with them. Other criticisms I felt were dogshit (specifically the moanings of the mob of marching morons that is the anti-CGI crowd) but at least they were criticizing something which was commonly used throughout the series (to it's benefit, by I digress). But Midi-Chlorians? Really.

The criticism that I get for this is that it takes some of the mystique away from The Force by making it into another scientific phenomenon. Frankly I don't buy it. First of all Midi-Chlorians are not The Force. They are only said to be a link between the Force and "Higher Life Forms". It does not contradict what is said about the force in the original trilogy, that it is born of all life. The line about Midi-Chlorians only state that there is certain intermediaries involved in some way. It does not answer all questions about the force by any means. This is on top of the fact that I think that I have no problems with Unweaving Rainbows and it's only logical that Force Users in a scientific society would try to understand an objectively verifiable phenomenon even if their insights are at best incomplete. Besides Darth Plagueis did good things with Midi-Chlorians in the lore in the EU.

But leaving aside all of that there is the fact that Midi-Chlorians are a blink and you'd miss it thing in the actual films. They come up three times in the Prequel Trilogy, one of which is in one of the best scenes in Revenge of the Sith. But finally the existence of Midi-Chlorians does not lesson the emotions of the characters, dull their motivations, make the actions less spectacular or their world less vibrant. At the very worst midi-chlorians is a sandgrain sized chip off one of the Solid Granite Columns on which the franchise rests.

So in short the whole "Midi-Chlorians Ruined Star Wars" is one which does not hold up.

Zor

Has it really been eighteen years -wait, almost nineteen? Jesus Christ!

Of all the criticisms of TPM, this was always the dumbest. It was simply a faux-scientific sounding term to describe what the previous movies made clear: Force potential can be hereditary. Lucas simply added two new aspects:

1) Qui-Gon Jinn describes the midichlorians as speaking to Force users when they are at peace -like the conscience in real-world religions when the faithful are passive.

2) The relative midichlorian counts of different characters are used to evaluate their potential. The way Qui-Gonn flipped for Anakin over his score was like an NFL coach who sees a huge player running a 4.3 in the 40-yard dash.

There is no problem with little beasties that are attracted to people with strong force potential as far as I am concerned.

People didn't like the fact that it 'over-explained' the Force but it makes sense that the Jedi Order would need to develop some tool to measure force potential in their aspirants.

I do wonder if the reaction against over-explaining stuff is partially responsible for the current 'shut up, nerd' attitude the writers seem to have towards coherent world-building

Midichlorians suck ass. The idea of being able to literally measure Force "potential" like each Jedi is some sort of athlete takes the mystical Force of the Original Trilogy and shits all over it, turning it into an exceedingly lame, Star Trek sounding thing. Where Yoda waxed poetic about how we were "luminous beings", not "crude matter" (he says as he literally pinches Luke's arm, derisively) in Empire Strikes Back, the prequels try and sell us on the absurd idea that our 'crude matter' is actually directly relevant to someone's Force potential - and worse, that Darth Vader being injured diminished him accordingly (Lucas asserted this repeatedly during the prequels run but luckily this terrible idea never made it into the actual movie).

The Force was already explained to us in the OT twice. By both Obi-Wan Yoda. Midichlorians serve absolutely no legitimate narrative purpose apart from telling us that Anakin Skywalker is unusually strong with the Force. For this - which could easily have been established by every Jedi who mattered simply agreeing on this fact, we get 'midichlorians', which takes the OT's elegant explanation and layers on an extra pile of uncertainty that explains nothing important.

This article says it best:

https://io9.gizmodo.com/5478314/the-rea ... rians?IR=T

Who said midichlorians ruined Star Wars? It's just a clunky line of dialog that's unnecessary, gave us underwhelming ass "the count is high" making the quantification of Force powers more or less the same as blood platelets lol, and of the same mockability as "I hate sand." So, it didn't single handedly do anything (ruin or otherwise), it's just another meh underwhelming and questionable aspect of a botched prequel series.

I think part of the hate is also because in the prequels, Force abilities were used and thrown around like shitty RPG abilities. Jedi/Sith stuff was pretty much treated like a game of World of Warcraft or whatever. Granted, the point of it was to show the Jedi at their peak when they could throw these powers willy nilly. Nonetheless, the restraint of the OT, the "build up" of the meaning and significance of the Force in conjunction with the hero's arc, et al. made the Force as a thing, Force abilities, etc. synergize well with the narrative.

It's kind of like how it does make sense for Anakin to be a stiff whiny ass, and for the Jedi Council to be these stunted shmuckos who've got sticks up their asses... but watching them flounder and fail for three movies doesn't make for engaging narrative even though that's how it happened in-universe.

It's pretty much "more is less" in terms of narrative construction. Obi-Wan saying "the clone wars" as an off-handed thing made it mean so much more than seeing a bunch of Clone Troopers in CG doing a LOTR-esque charge towards crashing spaceships... heck, Obi-Wan summarizing the fate of Anakin came off better than seeing Hans Christian Andersen portray Anakin and show us why he fell and "I hate sand."

Same reason why Blade Runner's awesome, why we'll remember Roy Batty's quote, his allusion to attack ships on fire and C-beams glittering in the dark, whereas if it was actually portrayed (CG or not) as either blatant flashbacks or outright space battle scenes on their own would've made it less memorable.

streetad wrote: ↑2017-12-27 08:02am There is no problem with little beasties that are attracted to people with strong force potential as far as I am concerned.

People didn't like the fact that it 'over-explained' the Force but it makes sense that the Jedi Order would need to develop some tool to measure force potential in their aspirants.

I do wonder if the reaction against over-explaining stuff is partially responsible for the current 'shut up, nerd' attitude the writers seem to have towards coherent world-building

Integrating world-building into writing isn't mutually exclusive with portrayals that aren't infodumpy or clunky, that flow, that work narratively, that have poetry.

Writers can have super coherent worldbuilding that takes into account everything, but nonetheless in the on-screen or on-page product have something that follows "more is less."

I could worldbuild and have specifications for how iPods work but I won't need to have a character or a voice over or whatever explain how iPods work and how they use gigajoules of whatnot to process terabytes of some such.

Look at how William Gibson writes his sci-fi. Whether it's a cyberdeck or biotechno-implants or a shot of heroin, you won't see some guy doing it everyday going "XYZ is the reversed polarity of such and such gigatubules" they'll just go "gimme another hit, Renton! aahhh yeah that's the stuff!"

Vympel wrote: ↑2017-12-27 09:37am Where Yoda waxed poetic about how we were "luminous beings", not "crude matter" (he says as he literally pinches Luke's arm, derisively) in Empire Strikes Back, the prequels try and sell us on the absurd idea that our 'crude matter' is actually directly relevant to someone's Force potential - and worse, that Darth Vader being injured diminished him accordingly (Lucas asserted this repeatedly during the prequels run but luckily this terrible idea never made it into the actual movie).

But Vympel that's bad world building! Who cares if it makes for actually watchable scenes and incredible narratives! And... oh no people are criticizing shit deliveries and depictions?!

My god these people are a bunch of Vogons. Actually Vogons are better since they try to be poetic.

I've always found midichlorians to be easier to ignore than most of the other awkwardness in the prequels, since I subscribe to the interpretation that they are an effect, rather than a cause, of Force sensitivity. So Qui-Gon's blood test ends up being like how doctors test for certain viruses. We can't see them directly, but we can look for antibodies or calculate the concentration of the cells that the viruses attack.

I only really objected to midi-chlorians when Qui-Gon gave Anakin his awkward infodump. If they'd started and stopped with the brief scene of Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan discussing Anakin's blood test--which was more than enough to tell the audience that they somehow quantified Force potential--I don't think they'd be regarded as so egregiously awful.

streetad wrote: ↑2017-12-27 08:02amI do wonder if the reaction against over-explaining stuff is partially responsible for the current 'shut up, nerd' attitude the writers seem to have towards coherent world-building

If so, that's pathetic since midichlorians are mentioned about the same number of times as moisture vaporators. Catering to the loudest, most obnoxious faction of "fans" is never a good idea in any event.

Personally, I found the whole Chosen One thing annoying as hell, since it was a hackneyed cliche when The Golden Child came out thirteen years earlier. It's also the dumbest, most pointless part of Game of Thrones. I'd have thought that Prequel-bashers would have jumped on that for being a pretentious cliche but then they're not exactly the brightest -and like dumb dogs they chase their own tails.

Vympel wrote: ↑2017-12-27 09:37am Midichlorians suck ass. The idea of being able to literally measure Force "potential" like each Jedi is some sort of athlete takes the mystical Force of the Original Trilogy and shits all over it, turning it into an exceedingly lame, Star Trek sounding thing. Where Yoda waxed poetic about how we were "luminous beings", not "crude matter" (he says as he literally pinches Luke's arm, derisively) in Empire Strikes Back, the prequels try and sell us on the absurd idea that our 'crude matter' is actually directly relevant to someone's Force potential - and worse, that Darth Vader being injured diminished him accordingly (Lucas asserted this repeatedly during the prequels run but luckily this terrible idea never made it into the actual movie).

The only difference between saying the Skywalkers are strong with the Force because of bloodlines rather than because of midichlorians is that the latter is given a quasi-scientific sounding name. The point is that Anakin could have been the best ever, based on raw potential alone, but he pissed it all away because of severe character flaws. His kids also carry Force potential, which means there is already a physical component. But yeah, using a faux-scientific term in a science fiction movie is unforgivable.

As for Vader being weaker because he's damaged goods, that was already implied in ROTJ since the Emperor was looking to replace him with Luke.

This article says it best:

https://io9.gizmodo.com/5478314/the-rea ... rians?IR=T

A Gawkerverse article that cites Damon Lindelof as the go-to guy for crafting fiction?

Elfdart wrote: ↑2017-12-27 01:12pm The only difference between saying the Skywalkers are strong with the Force because of bloodlines rather than because of midichlorians is that the latter is given a quasi-scientific sounding name. The point is that Anakin could have been the best ever, based on raw potential alone, but he pissed it all away because of severe character flaws. His kids also carry Force potential, which means there is already a physical component. But yeah, using a faux-scientific term in a science fiction movie is unforgivable.

It's not 'unforgiveable' per se, it's just painfully unnecessary, and it sounds dumb.

As for Vader being weaker because he's damaged goods, that was already implied in ROTJ since the Emperor was looking to replace him with Luke.

Only in hindsight. Without the prequels existence, we would simply assume that Palpatine is a prick who replaces his apprentices before they get around to replacing him (as Vader indicated to Luke in TESB).

This article says it best:
A Gawkerverse article that cites Damon Lindelof as the go-to guy for crafting fiction?

I loved it - because all the worrying about Lost's ending being fuckn terrible were true.

Yeah, I don't give two shits about the midichlorians.

Besides, there are much better things to bash the Prequels for, if one is so inclined (like silly child Anakin, Padme making excuses for Anakin's act of genocidal mass murder in Attack of the Clones, Padme's contrived borderline-continuity error death, just... Jar Jar).

Vympel wrote: ↑2017-12-27 10:07pmIt's not 'unforgiveable' per se, it's just painfully unnecessary, and it sounds dumb.

The word doesn't roll off the tongue, but neither did navicomputer. The only person who bitched about that was Harrison Ford.

As for Vader being weaker because he's damaged goods, that was already implied in ROTJ since the Emperor was looking to replace him with Luke.

Only in hindsight. Without the prequels existence, we would simply assume that Palpatine is a prick who replaces his apprentices before they get around to replacing him (as Vader indicated to Luke in TESB).

Who's this "we" kemosabe? I thought Vader's power was waning in ROTJ the first time I saw it. He seemed worn out, a broken man. Now I don't know for sure if that was by design when they were making the movie or if David Prowse's arthritis just happened to coincide with James Earl Jones having a chest cold, but I always had the impression that Vader was being set up to be replaced like an aging ball player when the boss sees a new prospect.

Elfdart wrote: ↑2017-12-28 10:35am The word doesn't roll off the tongue, but neither did navicomputer. The only person who bitched about that was Harrison Ford.

Also a word they never bothered using again, amusingly.

Who's this "we" kemosabe? I thought Vader's power was waning in ROTJ the first time I saw it. He seemed worn out, a broken man. Now I don't know for sure if that was by design when they were making the movie or if David Prowse's arthritis just happened to coincide with James Earl Jones having a chest cold, but I always had the impression that Vader was being set up to be replaced like an aging ball player when the boss sees a new prospect.

Also fair, but neither interpretation would credibly lead us to "oh yeah, Vader's injuries reduced his force potential because actually how much flesh you have matters now, so if you lose an arm you get less powerful".

There are a lot of good explanations for why massive, crippling injuries might make you weaker in the Force besides "more flesh -> more midichlorians -> can telekinetically lift more spherical masses of iron."

For example "severe injuries -> increased psychological sense of your body as your body -> less able to transcend your body -> less Force power." This would make an interesting contrast- Vader, whose body is a prison and whose cyborg machinery keeps him going in a painful half-life, becomes less powerful; Obi-Wan, who lets go of his attachment to his body and transcends, becomes "more powerful than you can possibly imagine." It's a problematic message in some ways, but a powerful one: your physical limitations can become a cage.

Or "traumatic accident -> psychological scarring -> reduced ability to work miracles by force of will." Vader might never be the same after the accident on Mustafar because he loses some of his willpower. Even the original trilogy style Dark Side relies on being able to embrace your anger and hatred, drawing them for power, and Vader being so caught up in self-loathing that he can't fully do even that would be in character. He is not and never was portrayed as a man who has a good self-image, not even in the original trilogy.

Or there could be some outright magical requirement that a Jedi be 'pure of body,' with any artificial parts decreasing this purity.

It doesn't just have to be about "more meat, more power."

The injuries may also only be part of the problem. Seeing as how Vader and Palpatine are the bad guys here, it's not very likely that the suit does all that much to reduce the massive amount of pain resulting from being roasted alive in a lava pit. In fact, the Dark Side being the way it is, it could actually be considered a feature, since Vader would be able to harness the physical pain to draw strength from the Dark Side.

However, Vader's emotional anguish over Luke has him distracted. He's no longer able to concentrate on drawing strength from the pain, and so the pain actually begins to weaken him instead. Just like in ROTS, when Obi-Wan tearfully laments about how he loved Anakin, the glow fades from Anakin's eyes as he begins to doubt his hatred, and he immediately catches fire in that momentary distraction.

Simon_Jester wrote: ↑2017-12-29 12:01am Even the original trilogy style Dark Side relies on being able to embrace your anger and hatred, drawing them for power, and Vader being so caught up in self-loathing that he can't fully do even that would be in character. He is not and never was portrayed as a man who has a good self-image, not even in the original trilogy.

Hurm, I think the rest of your stuff is on point but I'll just nitpick this one. In a lot of Vader literature, from the whole "hhnggg his cybernetic body is made to hurt him so more dark side evils!" to the whole Legends Maul: "what could you possibly hate enough to beat me?" and Vader going "myself," that aspect of self-loathing was actually portrayed as a strength on Vader's part.

But sure, your point could work from the perspective of Vader's hate and anger being still focused on personal problems, it's still "petty" compared to the transcendental impersonal darkness and such of someone like Palpatine. A bit like how Dooku's vanity led to his downfall. Hmmm... perhaps Palptine taking personal glee at the events in ROTJ was what took him out of the game (similarly as how it got chancy for him in ROTS), whereas he was at his best with his evil impersonal machinations to the point where some literature suggested that his Dark Side wiles was clouding the Jedi's perception of the Force (sure it could likewise be just the Clone Wars, but nonetheless Palpatine's prescience and mystically-measured manipulations was part of the whole shebang...).

I think the midichlorians were like jar jar, a one word perfect example of what went wrong in the prequels. It tries to reduce the mystic to the scientific and we may well have qui-gon screaming his power level is over 9000 and snapping his scouter.

The Droid army is a great idea on paper because it's basically skynet and the terminators. That's terrifying and yet the execution is bumbling foolish comedy relief bots. There's no threat from them. And it goes along with the overdone force powers. Trained Jedi in their prime should be more impressive than what we saw Luke do and deflecting multiple blasters at once makes sense but the execution was cartoonish.

The original trilogy was not hard R it was all ages in a way that didn't pander to kids but the prequels, especially TPM, was like a kids show.

The funny thing about storytelling is there's the choice of what to show and what to tell and what to leave as inference. I agree with the above, that the simple telling of the clone Wars in ANH beat the depiction. Writers are always told show don't tell but showing doesn't always mean showing it. For example we all remember the opening monologue of the godfather. In the novel it was fully depicted. The filmmakers wisely decided they could save the time because the character would have to relate all the events to the don so why not just start there? And it works so well.

A prequel could work well if exploration provides more context, more understanding. We all know of Lucifer's fall but he says consider who wrote that book. Here is my account. If it is essentially the same story then it's redundant since we don't learn anything more than we already knew. Perhaps a character seen as pure evil might be cast in a more sympathetic light.

With the prequels Vader's fall basically went how we surmised but the new information didn't satisfy. In part because it's impossible to live up to hype, in part because everyone had their own ideas for the missing details and lastly because the execution was lacking. My personal opinion is the contradictions in background due to the original trilogy changing with each movie made actually telling the story in detail a horrible mess and likely impossible to resolve. Why would Luke be placed in hiding with that surname? With his own blood relatives? On Vader's bloody home world? With obi-wan still wearing jedi robes? And if he's the future hope vs Vader why not train him from birth? Ditto for Leia.

Simon_Jester wrote: ↑2017-12-29 12:01am There are a lot of good explanations for why massive, crippling injuries might make you weaker in the Force besides "more flesh -> more midichlorians -> can telekinetically lift more spherical masses of iron."

For example "severe injuries -> increased psychological sense of your body as your body -> less able to transcend your body -> less Force power." This would make an interesting contrast- Vader, whose body is a prison and whose cyborg machinery keeps him going in a painful half-life, becomes less powerful; Obi-Wan, who lets go of his attachment to his body and transcends, becomes "more powerful than you can possibly imagine." It's a problematic message in some ways, but a powerful one: your physical limitations can become a cage.

Or "traumatic accident -> psychological scarring -> reduced ability to work miracles by force of will." Vader might never be the same after the accident on Mustafar because he loses some of his willpower. Even the original trilogy style Dark Side relies on being able to embrace your anger and hatred, drawing them for power, and Vader being so caught up in self-loathing that he can't fully do even that would be in character. He is not and never was portrayed as a man who has a good self-image, not even in the original trilogy.

Or there could be some outright magical requirement that a Jedi be 'pure of body,' with any artificial parts decreasing this purity.

It doesn't just have to be about "more meat, more power."

There is an interesting line in the ROTJ novel too, that has always stuck with me. When Luke and Vader are on the landing platform on Endor prior to going to the DS II. Luke suggests to Vader of letting go his hate but the novel says Vader really didn't hate anyone. I'd have to go pull it off the shelf and find the quote but it definitely suggests even in the 1980's that Vader really only hated himself and not the world or anyone else in it.

Shroom Man 777 wrote: ↑2017-12-29 12:39pm

Simon_Jester wrote: ↑2017-12-29 12:01am Even the original trilogy style Dark Side relies on being able to embrace your anger and hatred, drawing them for power, and Vader being so caught up in self-loathing that he can't fully do even that would be in character. He is not and never was portrayed as a man who has a good self-image, not even in the original trilogy.

Hurm, I think the rest of your stuff is on point but I'll just nitpick this one. In a lot of Vader literature, from the whole "hhnggg his cybernetic body is made to hurt him so more dark side evils!" to the whole Legends Maul: "what could you possibly hate enough to beat me?" and Vader going "myself," that aspect of self-loathing was actually portrayed as a strength on Vader's part.

But sure, your point could work from the perspective of Vader's hate and anger being still focused on personal problems, it's still "petty" compared to the transcendental impersonal darkness and such of someone like Palpatine. A bit like how Dooku's vanity led to his downfall. Hmmm... perhaps Palptine taking personal glee at the events in ROTJ was what took him out of the game (similarly as how it got chancy for him in ROTS), whereas he was at his best with his evil impersonal machinations to the point where some literature suggested that his Dark Side wiles was clouding the Jedi's perception of the Force (sure it could likewise be just the Clone Wars, but nonetheless Palpatine's prescience and mystically-measured manipulations was part of the whole shebang...).

I've been a proponent since the PT, that the Force (god) orchestrated the whole affair. The shroud of the dark side wasn't so much Palpatine but the Force shielding the coming purge from the Jedi, then flipped it on it's head and shielded the knowledge of Luke and Vader's betrayal from Palpatine in the OT.

Knife wrote: ↑2018-01-07 10:58amThere is an interesting line in the ROTJ novel too, that has always stuck with me. When Luke and Vader are on the landing platform on Endor prior to going to the DS II. Luke suggests to Vader of letting go his hate but the novel says Vader really didn't hate anyone. I'd have to go pull it off the shelf and find the quote but it definitely suggests even in the 1980's that Vader really only hated himself and not the world or anyone else in it.

Indeed:

RotJ paperback, p152 wrote:'Search you feeling Father. You can't do this. I feel the conflict within you. Let go of your hate.'
But Vader hated no one; he only lusted too blindly.

That sounds like a pretty accurate description of the events and attitude that lead directly to Anakin's fall in RotS.