StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Sea Skimmer wrote:I agree anyway that the fall of Anakin could have been better overall, but I thought the final sudden turn made sense as establishing that the dark side is not just a concept, but a very real controlling thing.

I thought it was well understood that the Force was semi-sentient, or at least capable of planning, and that it can exercise control over anything it wants using midichlorian-infused life forms as conduits. In fact, didn't Obi-wan and Luke have a conversation where Luke asked if it controlled your actions, and Ben replied to the effect that it *did* do that, but it also allowed you to use it for your own reasons? I kinda figured that given that Anakin's fall and return was a prophecy (ie. something visualized in the future as seen through the Force), he didn't have a whole hell of a lot of choice in the matter - he fell when and where the Force needed him to, which to me answered Anakin's "WHAT HAVE I DONE?" outburst - even he didn't realize the influence of the Force over his judgement and actions.

A line from a man known to be dishonest and who is preaching about his religion is hardly credible. Also, its not clear in that scene how much the Force controls people, so its not clear weather it would make a good man murder friends and children.

I also think its a dubious assumption that anything seen about the future through the Force is a plan of the Force's.

Moreover, your position implies that it was the will of the Force that Palpatine triumphed, which leaves two possible conclusions: either the Force (the closest thing to God in Star Wars) is corrupt, or his evil was justified. Either is too cynical to fit the tone of the Original Trilogy, and to me would be a betrayal of what Star Wars was at its best.

Maybe the Force recognized that the Jedi were no longer the tool for good that it needed and it simply trimmed the Rose Bush to allow for new buds to grow. You can't apply your morals or line of thinking to an omnipotent entity.

The Romulan Republic wrote:A line from a man known to be dishonest and who is preaching about his religion is hardly credible. Also, its not clear in that scene how much the Force controls people, so its not clear weather it would make a good man murder friends and children.

The Force can alter people's thoughts and memories, move matter, and identify events decades in advance. The Force has both means and motive, so all you need is to determine that it has sentience, which is only possible if you are willing to take philosophical dialog seriously. Like, when Qui-Gon told Anakin that midichlorians "speak to us, telling us the will of the Force", or Yoda telling Luke that the Force "shows us things", and Ben's "it partially controls our actions". Jedi philosophers, at least, like describing the Force as if it had a certain amount of independence. The only thing in common with that dialog that makes it suspect is that in each case, wise men are describing the Force to a child and an uneducated bumpkin, respectively, so while I'm fairly certain they're being honest, it's only my interpretation that they're being accurate.

Moreover, your position implies that it was the will of the Force that Palpatine triumphed, which leaves two possible conclusions: either the Force (the closest thing to God in Star Wars) is corrupt, or his evil was justified. Either is too cynical to fit the tone of the Original Trilogy, and to me would be a betrayal of what Star Wars was at its best.

It's kind of looney to just say "you're wrong because god can't be amoral/immoral".

While you're absolutely correct that I can't prove the Force is sentient, the existence of and wording of the prophecy suggests that it is at least capable of taking action to stabilize itself - and that this action is totally without consideration for the suffering of innocents. Force not in balance? Create a single entity (Anakin) and put him on a path to first wipe out the Jedi, then wipe out the Sith (and himself). Also trillions of other people, and kids, maybe, who gives a shit? Clean slate achieved.

Lagmonster wrote: I thought it was well understood that the Force was semi-sentient, or at least capable of planning, and that it can exercise control over anything it wants using midichlorian-infused life forms as conduits.

That is hardly well understood.

In fact, didn't Obi-wan and Luke have a conversation where Luke asked if it controlled your actions, and Ben replied to the effect that it *did* do that, but it also allowed you to use it for your own reasons?

You can interpret that line many, many ways. If I have a swift flowing river, it can control my actions too, but I can also control it for my purposes. I could jump in and have it sweep me downstream and drown, or I could string a rope across and ride a ferry across powered by angling the ferry in the current, exploiting that power for my own means. This certainly doesn't make the river anything like sentient.

I kinda figured that given that Anakin's fall and return was a prophecy (ie. something visualized in the future as seen through the Force), he didn't have a whole hell of a lot of choice in the matter - he fell when and where the Force needed him to, which to me answered Anakin's "WHAT HAVE I DONE?" outburst - even he didn't realize the influence of the Force over his judgement and actions.

The only prophecy I recall was that 'one would bring balance to the force' which is vague as hell, and what's more, should hardly be necessary if the force itself is a self controlling sentient force of any sort. It seems far more consistent with an energy source/field as it was first described. Used in small measured amounts it can be good, used heavily for evil and it burns up your brain until you suddenly cross a threshold into being evil. Kind of like morphine really, an invaluable painkiller that can also turn people into hopeless physical addicts.

The Romulan Republic wrote: Moreover, your position implies that it was the will of the Force that Palpatine triumphed, which leaves two possible conclusions: either the Force (the closest thing to God in Star Wars) is corrupt, or his evil was justified. Either is too cynical to fit the tone of the Original Trilogy, and to me would be a betrayal of what Star Wars was at its best.

I agree in large part. If the force is sentient, that means it created and facilitated all the evil Sith powers, which mean it either is evil itself, or has such shitty control that any sentience is functionally meaningless. Why on earth would it intentionally let Palpatine get so strong only to create Anakin to rebalance itself decades later after entire planets are blown up with such an effect on the force that it ripples across the Galaxy for Obi Wan to feel?

Makes a lot more sense to view it as a very much a non sentient force that is governed by a law of mediation no different from say, the way high pressure always flows to areas of low pressure. Or any number of other analogies to natural rules. It just has certain unique properties, but even a specific 'become evil' threshold isn't really functionally different from the way materials can change phases at key temperatures.

There is a statement from one of the prequel novelizations (either Episode II or III), where I believe it's Obi-Wan who muses to himself that the oft-used term "the will of the Force" is merely how the Jedi are taught to understand it; even after millenia of study one of the final enlightened realizations attained by the Masters of the Jedi Order, is that discussing "the will of the Force" is merely like a man who does not understand gravity and liquids saying that it is "the will of a river" to flow toward the sea.
They know this, they understand that they do not understand, and yet the Jedi Order are devoted to carrying out that very "will of the Force"!

Meanwhile, it seems to be that another overarching idea is that the Sith simply believe the Force grants power to be harnessed to shape fate and destiny, ignoring the Force's "will" entirely... and this is what led to their downfall. I posit that perhaps they, too, were tools of the Force in the end, rather than the other way around.

Basically even the two religions/cults/organizations that have the best possible understanding of the Force both don't really know what the hell they're doing, and for that, they were both wiped out to the last man.

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/01/24/j ... 245c0000ce

J.J. Abrams to Direct Star Wars: Episode VII

A new report says that the director for Star Wars: Episode VII has been found and it’s none other than J.J. Abrams. The Wrap is reporting the huge news, saying that Abrams has agreed to direct the highly-anticipated film (to say the least) after months of being courted by new Lucasfilm head Kathleen Kennedy. Back in November, Abrams specifically said he was not going to do the film (indicating he had been asked), but as The Wrap puts it, “The lure of the Jedi was too strong.”...

...The Wrap is a very reliable source for news of this sort, and credit “an individual with knowledge of the production” as their source. They note they reached out to Lucasfilm spokeswoman Lynne Hale, who declined to immediately comment.

The one note of caution here is the recent story about Zack Snyder directing a separate, stand-alone Star Wars film, which was first reported by the also-credible Vulture – only for Snyder’s reps to say it wasn’t true, even as Vulture stood by their sources. Lucasfilm is obviously being secretive with the Star Wars films as negotiations have been going on with directors, so we’ll all be waiting to see when they officially comment on this report that Abrams is the guy making The Movie We’re All Waiting For.

Meh.

I feel like Princess Leia in the garbage compactor: "It could be worse."

Hey Havok, how about Benedict Cumberbatch as Grand Admiral Thrawn?

Havok wrote:Meh.

Correct answer.

If I were interested in watching non-George Lucas "Star Wars", I would have preferred seeing it directed by Michael Bay. At least he knows how to shoot stars and sunsets without those annoying halos or whatever that stuff is called. He also does a better job of shooting action scenes.

I'm kinda iffy just because I enjoyed the hell out of Trek XI and unless Into Darkness totally sucks would like to see him concentrate on Trek. That said, I gladly drink the Abrams koolaid, so it seems promising to me.

Trek XI stunk to high heaven but I'm not sure I'm particularly impressed with what Michael Bay did with Transformers, either. That being said, I agree the Bayformers movies had better action scenes, and while I don't know how much input a movie director has into the SFX, the reboot Trek movie hand phasers made the TOS ones look good.

I thought Abrams' Star Trek film was pretty good. And since the Star Wars film has a different writer, its biggest flaw, an implausible story, hopefully won't be a problem. Abrams is also apparently a Star Wars fan.

If this is true, its a decent choice. However, I thought he said he wasn't directing it.

He apparently initially said so. According to the information provided in this thread it appears that yes he is.

Elfdart wrote:

Havok wrote:Meh.

Correct answer.

If I were interested in watching non-George Lucas "Star Wars", I would have preferred seeing it directed by Michael Bay. At least he knows how to shoot stars and sunsets without those annoying halos or whatever that stuff is called. He also does a better job of shooting action scenes.

Don't even joke about shit like that man. Bay would have shit R2 like humping Leia's leg if he got in

Elfdart wrote:At least he knows how to shoot stars and sunsets without those annoying halos or whatever that stuff is called.

It's a blue iteration of the Star Wars text that arguably looks a lot better than the traditional yellow-on-black one?

Galvatron wrote:Hey Havok, how about Benedict Cumberbatch as Grand Admiral Thrawn?

Doesn't look or act like him. Sadly Jeremy Irons is too old, ten years ago he would have been my top pick.

Always thought Jeremy Irons was an awful choice. Daniel Day-Lewis is my top pick, followed by Charles Dance. Cumberbatch would actually be an excellent younger Thrawn, IMO.

I always thought Timothy Dalton would have been perfect for the role.

I can't remember anything by Abrams that didn't go in one ear and out the other. He's the king of empty, artless film-making.

This whole project strikes me the same as phony band reunions. You know when a band you were into split up and years later you see an ad for their newest album or live show, only to find out that it's not really the band you liked, but a few curtain-jerkers who somehow acquired the rights to the group's name?

Galvatron wrote:Always thought Jeremy Irons was an awful choice. Daniel Day-Lewis is my top pick, followed by Charles Dance. Cumberbatch would actually be an excellent younger Thrawn, IMO.

Dudes. You're all missing a really, really good one: Christoph Waltz. He's around the right age, and he practically oozes menace and cultured intelligence.

Elfdart wrote:I can't remember anything by Abrams that didn't go in one ear and out the other. He's the king of empty, artless film-making.

So he's perfect, then?

Batman wrote:It's a blue iteration of the Star Wars text that arguably looks a lot better than the traditional yellow-on-black one?

No, it's a Photoshop of the traditional yellow-on-black logo with Abrams' signature lens flares.

That you think it actually looks better amuses me though.

while I think JJ is a good directer I hate that he was chosen. Not because he won't do an amazing job, he is at the top of my list but because of the inevitable parodies we will see. Oh you think he is going to have a lot of lens flairs because he decided to do that for Star Trek? Show me your really cool photoshop you did and how cleaver you think you are. :rollseyes

He knows how to direct action, make interesting characters even if they are based of basic archatypes they are very distinct and he is an obvious fan of Star Wars.

While he isn't a very adventurousness director he is more of a classical director like John Ford or Steven Speilberg which is what Star Wars needs right now. We can add more adventerous directors when we get all the spin off movies about the indvidual characters. Right now we need a good Star Wars movies that invokes Empire or Return.

Elfdart wrote:
If I were interested in watching non-George Lucas "Star Wars", I would have preferred seeing it directed by Michael Bay. At least he knows how to shoot stars and sunsets without those annoying halos or whatever that stuff is called. He also does a better job of shooting action scenes.

You know, when the "non-lucas" SW (though why you're saying that confuses the hell our of me, as Lucas is still on as a creative consultant.) ends up being better than most of the prequels, I am going to laugh my ass off.