Revenge Of The Sith

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Tao,

Also, when Obi-Wan tells Anakin that "only a Sith deals in absolutes", he is responding to Anakin who says "if you are not with me, you are my enemy"...which is paraphrasing George Bush's statement about his foreign policy. I think Bush used the words "if you are not with us, you are against us" or something similar. I believe he was referring to France, Germany and others that disagreed with starting the War in Iraq. So are they our enemies? Of course not. They were not against us...they just disagreed with us. Bush was making a statement of political absolutism, and he should not have done so. The fact that we are not at war with France and Germany prove that even Bush disagreed with his own statement! He recognized that France and Germany were not "against us".

Actually, George Bush's line was "You are either with us, or with the terrorists." He said it shortly after 9/11, in connection with the broad war on jihadist terror, not with the future war in Iraq, and I think it was perfectly appropriate. After 3,000 of us got murdered by terrorists, it was clear that there was no legitimate neutral ground. Terrorists are common enemies of mankind, and a country that refused to cooperate in hunting them down would be analogous to a 17th-century state that allowed pirates to use its harbors without interference.

The Bush administration recognized that there could be legitimate disagreement on the Iraq campaign, as it could be reasonably debated whether that campaign or another measure would be more effective in the general campaign against terrorism. Therefore, Bush didn't say "You're either for us or against us" in that context. As far as the overall anti-terrorism campaign goes, though, I believe "with us, or with the terrorists" is still American policy.

Ironic that George Lucas should put the sentiment of the impeccably-liberal Sixties radicals ("If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem") in the mouth of Darth Vader. So the New Left was evil incarnate? That's good to hear a good liberal like Lucas say.

Politically speaking, Lucas is a cloistered, simple-minded hole.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Setheus@May 21 2005, 06:52 AM

I can't wait to hear your review of Heaven.

Exactly!!

It appears as if he couldn't be satisfied with ANYTHING!

He is the ONLY person that I have heard say anything remotely negative about 'Revenge of the Sith'!

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Duck:

Actually, George Bush's line was "You are either with us, or with the terrorists." He said it shortly after 9/11, in connection with the broad war on jihadist terror, not with the future war in Iraq, and I think it was perfectly appropriate. After 3,000 of us got murdered by terrorists, it was clear that there was no legitimate neutral ground. Terrorists are common enemies of mankind, and a country that refused to cooperate in hunting them down would be analogous to a 17th-century state that allowed pirates to use its harbors without interference.

If that was his intention behind the statement, then it was appropriate.

Unfortunately alot of extremists looked to that statement at the time of the Iraq war as a way to justify labelling liberals and anyone who disagreed with the war as a traitor. Those so-called "patriots" are the "Sith" who think in "absolutes". Anne Coulter, for example?

The Bush administration recognized that there could be legitimate disagreement on the Iraq campaign, as it could be reasonably debated whether that campaign or another measure would be more effective in the general campaign against terrorism.

So gray areas do exist. This validates the statement "only a Sith thinks in Absolutes". Good for Bush for recognizing this.

Ironic that George Lucas should put the sentiment of the impeccably-liberal Sixties radicals ("If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem") in the mouth of Darth Vader.

Equally ironic that Bush would be paraphrasing liberals after 9/11, isn't it?

If you are not with us you are with the terrorists. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

Who would have thought Bush would ever agree with Sixties liberals?

More gray areas!

So the New Left was evil incarnate? That's good to hear a good liberal like Lucas say.

I doubt that was his intention

Actually, I thought he was using the Soviet Union as a model for the Empire...until recently...I read that looking at the big picture (the prequal trilogy which was in the back of his mind) he was criticizing politicians of his time. I don't know why he criticized them, because I was not alive in the 60's. I read that he disagreed with the Vietnam War. Alot of other people thought the war was pointless. That is a parallel to Star Wars, which had the Clone Wars, which were started by a conspiracy between Palpatine and his apprentice to gain power. What does it all mean? Was Vietnam pointless? I really don't know.

Another gray area?

Politically speaking, Lucas is a cloistered, simple-minded hole.

I wouldn't say that. He made some good political points, even if he is not being fair to George W. Bush.

I think that if there was a political theme is Star Wars, it was that power corrupts people, and that ineffective democracies are in danger of becoming dicatorships (which has been true in the case of Nazi Germany).

The jabs at George Bush are exaggerated...maybe intentionally.

I'll bet Lucas would even admit they were exaggerated.

I can't speak for Lucas, but if I am to give him the benefit of the doubt, I would say that his comparisons to Bush and Iraq were meant as a warning of what MIGHT happen if our leaders are not very careful...not necessarily what WILL happen.

No one can predict the future...not even George Lucas.

No one KNOWS for certain if the war in Iraq will be a good thing or a bad thing in the long run...we will find out when this war is all ancient history.

For now it is a "gray area".

As Yoda says "always in motion the future is".

As Obi Wan Kenobi says "Only a Sith thinks in absolutes".

I think it is a good message, even if it doesn't apply to Bush.

It doesn't blur right and wrong (as Jason suggested)...it just says that right and wrong CAN be subjective in SOME cases.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Moved below for PD to read...

[Jason]

Exactly!!

It appears as if he couldn't be satisfied with ANYTHING!

No. I just don't accept sub-standard things (that includes religion)!

He is the ONLY person that I have heard say anything remotely negative about 'Revenge of the Sith'!

Haven't been around much, eh kid?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Tao,

A common fallacy is that because it's often hard to determine what is right and what is wrong, therefore, absolute right and wrong do not exist.

If only a Sith thinks in absolutes, then give me my black cloak and helmet. Lucas can't seriously believe that thinking in absolutes is wrong. Does he honestly think that there would have been some circumstance in which the Holocaust would have justified? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that slaughtering millions of people because of their ancestry is absolutely wrong under any and all circumstances. Any disagreement?

</crickets>

(The good 'ol reductio ad absurdum ... don't leave home without it.)

Unfortunately alot of extremists looked to that statement at the time of the Iraq war as a way to justify labelling liberals and anyone who disagreed with the war as a traitor. Those so-called "patriots" are the "Sith" who think in "absolutes". Anne Coulter, for example?

The "Liberals/dissidents got called traitors" boogeyman is much more hype than reality. I did see, in the early stages of the Iraq war, a lot of liberals making facile criticisms of the war ("No blood for oil"; "9/11 was an inside job", "Halliburton", "Patriot Act = dictatorship" etc.) and getting some serious flak for it. Fine with me. The First Amendment protects your right to dissent, and my right to call you a moron.

"Traitor" goes too far for an ordinary anti-war activist, but I do think there comes a point when a person's opposition to his country's chosen course in foreign affairs may damage his country's interests so severely that his loyalty can be called into question. I've sort of moved that way in my attitude towards dissent within the Church -- disagree with doctrines all you want (and I do), but make sure that you dissent with discretion, so that you don't wind up hurting the institution as a whole. To go farther than that, while still accepting the institution's benefits, is inconsistent with integrity. If it ever got to the point where I felt I had to speak out against one of the indispensable foundations of the Church, I'd become an Episcopalian before I'd erode those foundations while accepting the benefits of Church membership. Better an honest critic from without than a mole within.

Where was I? Oh, "traitor." All I can say is that if you're going to call George W. Bush a war criminal, don't be surprised if some people send some strong words back in your direction. I do think that some Americans are so anxious to see their country portrayed in the worst possible light, even in a time of war, that their loyalty to the United States can be legitimately questioned. I don't think Anne Coulter was too far out of bounds when she used the "t" word to refer to Marxist activists taking direction from the Soviet Union in the 1940s. (Yes, there were some who did; it wasn't all a McCarthyite myth.)

Ironic that George Lucas should put the sentiment of the impeccably-liberal Sixties radicals ("If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem") in the mouth of Darth Vader. 

Equally ironic that Bush would be paraphrasing liberals after 9/11, isn't it?

Since both of them were only quoting the Savior ("He who is not for me is against me"), I agree the line isn't really liberal OR conservative.

The Bush administration recognized that there could be legitimate disagreement on the Iraq campaign, as it could be reasonably debated whether that campaign or another measure would be more effective in the general campaign against terrorism.

So gray areas do exist. This validates the statement "only a Sith thinks in Absolutes". Good for Bush for recognizing this.

I wouldn't say this is a "gray area." That implies that something is partially good and partially evil. That's different from recognizing that the real world involves a balancing of the equities. For example, to dust off the World War II example (it's nice to have one war that, because the Nazis were SO nasty, pretty much everyone can agree was a Just War), we had the ultimate objective of defeating a monstrous tyranny. (Absolute Good.) As a practical matter, accomplishing that objective meant fighting a war, which would necessarily involve great waste and death, including the incidental killing of civilians and atrocities by some of our soldiers (since our armies will be composed of flawed human beings, we have to expect that some of them will take advantage of the occasion to rape, pillage, kill prisoners, etc.) Those things ought to be recognized as Absolute Evil, no? (Who's going to justify GIs raping German women?)

Yet the sum total of all the forces, good and evil, that we set in motion by determining to end the Nazi tyranny was the accomplishment of an absolute good -- the defeat of the architects of the Holocaust, and a major step toward the end of old-style wars of conquest and annexation.

I wouldn't say that the morality Allied victory in World War II was nothing more than a shade of gray, different only in tone from what would have been the morality of an Axis victory. Since one result was clearly morally better than the other, the final result was plain white (although the means employed were a mixture of black and white), while the opposite result would have been pure black.

The reason I have Lincoln's words from the Second Inaugural as my tagline is because Lincoln's line about "firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right" perfectly encapsulates how we ought to respond to making moral decisions in an ambiguous world: We need to make up our minds as to what is right and energetically defend it -- and yet remember that we may not be seeing the whole picture, that we may be wrong and that others may be right.

Ultimately, though, we'll see the whole picture, and know perfectly what is absolutely right and what is absolutely wrong.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint+May 27 2005, 09:50 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Taoist_Saint @ May 27 2005, 09:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@May 26 2005, 08:57 PM

they edited out the guy who was originally in the final "Jedi ghost" scene that played dying Darth Vader and inserted him.  So my daughter and I went back and looked at that final scene, and sure 'nuff, there was Anakin Skywalker circa 25 years old instead of Anakin Skywalker circa 50 years old.  (I always thought that ending was too hokey to end such a brilliant trilogy with.    )

It was cool that, in Episode 3, Yoda explained to Obi Wan that he would be trained to become "immortal" while on Tatooine.

And I didn't mind Luke seeing "Force Ghosts" at the end of the series. But it was corny to have him see them while surrounded by dancing Ewoks

Another comment on the Ghosts...I read this at a Star Wars message board.

Someone said that George Lucas commented on his decision to put the young Anakin Skywalker ghost in with the Yoda and Obi Wan Kenobi ghosts. They say that Qui Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson) taught Obi Wan and Yoda how to remain immortal (which Yoda describes in Episode 3). This has something to do with the fact that Qui Gon was a bit of a rebel among the Jedi who had his own unique philosophies about "the living force".

Here is the interesting part:

When Darth Vader died, Obi Wan and Yoda's ghosts "helped" to save Anakin and make him immortal. Since they considered his death to be when he turned to the dark side, his ghost looked the same age as when he lost his identity as Anakin. That explains why Yoda and Obi Wan have ghosts that look old, and Anakin's ghost looks young.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Hey look at this, PD...instead of reading my interpretation, you can read Lucas' own words...

Lucas: 'Sith' not written to echo Bush

Chicago Tribune

NICASIO, Calif. - With "Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith," George Lucas' epic science-fiction/fantasy series has come full circle - politically as well as storywise.

Lucas, you see, originally conceived "Star Wars" while many Americans were questioning leadership during Richard Nixon's presidency.

"It was really about the Vietnam War, and that was the period where Nixon was trying to run for a (second) term, which got me to thinking historically about how do democracies get turned into dictatorships?" Lucas said at his Skywalker Ranch earlier this month. "Because the democracies aren't overthrown; they're given away."

 

Now the "Star Wars" series has wrapped up while George W. Bush's presidency is triggering questions about America's role in the world, its use of military might and the tolerance of political dissent.

In "Revenge of the Sith," Chancellor Palpatine exploits war fears to turn the Republic into an Empire ruled by him alone. As Senator Padme, played by Natalie Portman, watches Palpatine consolidate his power amid a rapturous senate, she comments disgustedly, "This is how liberty dies: with thundering applause."

"I didn't expect that to be true," Lucas said, then laughed. "It gets truer every day, unfortunately."

Lucas said he wrote Portman's line and the screenplay's other politically pointed elements before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the subsequent war on terror.

So when Palpatine announces that he intends to remain at war until a certain General Grievous is captured, no parallels to the hunt for Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein were intended.

"First of all, we never thought of Bush ever becoming president," "Star Wars" producer Rick McCallum said, "or then 9/11, the Patriot Act, war, weapons of mass destruction. Then suddenly you realize, 'Oh, my God, there's something happening that looks like we're almost prescient.' And then we thought, 'Well, yeah, but he'll never make it to the second term, so we'll look like we just made some wacky political parody of a guy that everybody's forgotten.' "

Instead, viewers may assume that when Anakin Skywalker threatens, "If you are not with us, you are my enemy," he is intentionally echoing Bush's repeated "with us or against us" declarations. 

"I know that's the line that George Bush said, but many other people who have run countries have said it before him," said Ian McDiarmid, who plays Palpatine. "I think Slobodan Milosevic said it as a matter of fact when he was destroying the Balkans for his own ends. The line was something like, 'There are no friends anymore. You are either with us or against us.' And that really is a great Sith line."

So is George Bush a Sith?

"You'd have to ask him," McDiarmid said.

"I wouldn't say," Lucas laughed in response to the same question.

To Lucas the broader point is that politics, like the age-old myths that inform "Star Wars," never really changes.

"No matter who you look at in history, the story is always the same," Lucas said. "That's what's eerie. It was a little eerie that things have developed the way they have."

McCallum was willing to make one prediction: "There's no question that the French are going to love the movie. We are definitely going to get the Golden Freedom Fry Award for best movie of the year, because they'll see it exactly the way they see their relationship with us now. I have a feeling Europe will respond to the film on the political level much more than America will, because they can see it. They see it every day. They live it."

Apparantly he never intended to criticize Bush or the War in Iraq, because the ideas were there before 9/11...interesting.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Tao, again:

I call BS on Lucas. Some of those lines are just too pat. He wants me to believe those lines got written a quarter century ago, with nothing added since? Riight.

And with that "Unfortunately, it gets truer every day" line, my opinion of Lucas as a cavity is further confirmed. The security measures taken during the war on terror look like they were drafted by the ACLU (whose members need to be kicked for their profitable demagoguery over the (admittedly stupidly-named) Patriot Act) when you compare them with what was done during the Civil War, World War I, and World War II.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

oops...hold on...reading your post, PD...

[Lindy]

still, the word Illuminati came up in the same conversation as Star Wars. I found it very interesting.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@May 27 2005, 04:52 PM

Tao,

A common fallacy is that because it's often hard to determine what is right and what is wrong, therefore, absolute right and wrong do not exist.

If only a Sith thinks in absolutes, then give me my black cloak and helmet. Lucas can't seriously believe that thinking in absolutes is wrong. Does he honestly think that there would have been some circumstance in which the Holocaust would have justified? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that slaughtering millions of people because of their ancestry is absolutely wrong under any and all circumstances. Any disagreement?

I agree with you. I think Lucas would agree with you.

His stories are, after all, about good vs. evil.

I believe he is saying you can't always think in absolutes.

There are some absolutes, and some gray areas.

Maybe he should have made Obi Wan Kenobi elaborate a bit on that statement...though put in the context (Anakins decision)...it was true in that case, right? Anakin could look beyond the absolutism of saying that Obi Wan had to be a friend or an enemy...he could have compromised in some way (though at that point he was probably too far gone to the dark side).

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@May 27 2005, 04:52 PM

The "Liberals/dissidents got called traitors" boogeyman is much more hype than reality. I did see, in the early stages of the Iraq war, a lot of liberals making facile criticisms of the war ("No blood for oil"; "9/11 was an inside job", "Halliburton", "Patriot Act = dictatorship" etc.) and getting some serious flak for it. Fine with me. The First Amendment protects your right to dissent, and my right to call you a moron.

"Traitor" goes too far for an ordinary anti-war activist, but I do think there comes a point when a person's opposition to his country's chosen course in foreign affairs may damage his country's interests so severely that his loyalty can be called into question. I've sort of moved that way in my attitude towards dissent within the Church -- disagree with doctrines all you want (and I do), but make sure that you dissent with discretion, so that you don't wind up hurting the institution as a whole. To go farther than that, while still accepting the institution's benefits, is inconsistent with integrity. If it ever got to the point where I felt I had to speak out against one of the indispensable foundations of the Church, I'd become an Episcopalian before I'd erode those foundations while accepting the benefits of Church membership. Better an honest critic from without than a mole within.

Where was I? Oh, "traitor." All I can say is that if you're going to call George W. Bush a war criminal, don't be surprised if some people send some strong words back in your direction. I do think that some Americans are so anxious to see their country portrayed in the worst possible light, even in a time of war, that their loyalty to the United States can be legitimately questioned. I don't think Anne Coulter was too far out of bounds when she used the "t" word to refer to Marxist activists taking direction from the Soviet Union in the 1940s. (Yes, there were some who did; it wasn't all a McCarthyite myth.)

I agree.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@May 27 2005, 04:52 PM

Ironic that George Lucas should put the sentiment of the impeccably-liberal Sixties radicals ("If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem") in the mouth of Darth Vader. 

Equally ironic that Bush would be paraphrasing liberals after 9/11, isn't it?

Since both of them were only quoting the Savior ("He who is not for me is against me"), I agree the line isn't really liberal OR conservative.

I can't believe I forgot Jesus said it first.

Is it coincidence that Anakin was born of a virgin?

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

PD,

I said Iraq was a shade of gray only because we don't know if the long term consequences will be good or bad. Not because both sides (individual soldiers especially) will do immoral things.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@May 27 2005, 04:59 PM

Tao, again:

I call BS on Lucas. Some of those lines are just too pat. He wants me to believe those lines got written a quarter century ago, with nothing added since? Riight.

Actually, he said they were written 5 years ago, didn't he?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint+May 27 2005, 05:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Taoist_Saint @ May 27 2005, 05:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@May 27 2005, 04:52 PM

Tao,

A common fallacy is that because it's often hard to determine what is right and what is wrong, therefore, absolute right and wrong do not exist. 

If only a Sith thinks in absolutes, then give me my black cloak and helmet.  Lucas can't seriously believe that thinking in absolutes is wrong.  Does he honestly think that there would have been some circumstance in which the Holocaust would have justified?  I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that slaughtering millions of people because of their ancestry is absolutely wrong under any and all circumstances.  Any disagreement?

I agree with you. I think Lucas would agree with you.

His stories are, after all, about good vs. evil.

I believe he is saying you can't always think in absolutes.

There are some absolutes, and some gray areas.

Maybe he should have made Obi Wan Kenobi elaborate a bit on that statement...though put in the context (Anakins decision)...it was true in that case, right? Anakin could look beyond the absolutism of saying that Obi Wan had to be a friend or an enemy...he could have compromised in some way (though at that point he was probably too far gone to the dark side).

The strong theme of good vs. evil in the original Star Wars trilogy is why I find it impossible to believe Lucas hasn't done some serious tailoring of his story so as to take some whacks at George W. Bush, as is the fad in Hollywood these days.

The real reason Anakin was wrong to say "You are either for me or against me" is that while the universal laws of good and evil are ultimately absolute -- black and white -- people most definitely come in shades of gray. While it is one thing to have absolute fidelity to principle, no one should give absolute loyalty to a person -- with the possible exception of the Lord, who in any event is defined by being perfectly congruent with truth.

Hmm ... interesting thought that just gave me. It was legitimate for Christ, and Christ alone, to say "If you're not for me, you're against me" -- because He was perfect, and to be against him would be to be against truth and goodness themselves. It was not legitimate for Anakin to say the same thing -- because his character was not pure "white", but was grayed with a growing dark side. Absolute loyalty to him would thus have been wrong, as it would have necessarily involved absolute loyalty to at least some evil along with what good was there.

Extending that thought to the "You're either with us or with the terrorists," I would still agree -- but only if that phrase were understood as implying (as I believe it did) that the world must be with America on this particular question, because defeating jihadist terrorism seems to be a pretty clear-cut case. It would have been presumptuous and absurd for an American president to suggest that other countries must be on America's side on every question (steel tariffs? fisheries disputes? the valuation of the yuan?), and I think it's pretty clear that's not what President Bush meant.

Instead of having Obi-Wan object to Anakin's arrogance in misidentifying himself with Absolute Truth, entitled to absolute loyalty, Lucas has him spout a relativistic platitude that makes no sense in light of the whole Star Wars theme, and which Lucas himself can't possibly believe. THAT'S the secret of the Jedi? What a bunch of schmucks.

Of course, knowing how hard it is to write dialogue (I'm working on a project and MAN, writing dialogue is tedious if you really want to make it sound right), I shouldn't be too hard on George. But he missed a great opportunity to make an absolutely mythic point. The First Commandment is basically God saying "I'm God; you're not. Now listen." I think there's a reason this basic lesson comes first. Anakin's breaking this first principle would have been an incredibly powerful theme in Sith if it had been explored more fully.

The problem is not that the Sith "deal in absolutes." The problem is that they think they are absolutes.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Notice to whatever basement-dwelling, foul-mouthed arsehat it is that was lurking here using a variation on my name with an ever-so-clever rhyme for the word "duck": I do discharge the office suggested by your little wordplay as proudly and vigorously as I do all of my other duties, thank you very much.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Jason@May 27 2005, 05:50 PM

No.  I just don't accept sub-standard things (that includes religion)! 

Sub-standard, huh? You probably think most things are that way then, since the movie was great entertainment. As for sub-standard religion, I assume you're refering to all those that are an abomination in the sight of the Lord...

Haven't been around much, eh kid?

No, I been around quite a bit actually. I hear people on this thread getting waaaaaaaaaaay too deep about a movie meant for entertainment, it's silly trying to relate it to religion and/or politics. Remember, these books were written decades before any Bush was in office - Lucas was following the plots he wrote about then, not trying to send a message to the President, or anyone else (religion included).

By the way, I hate to break it to you, but I'm not a 'kid'. The 17 in my name has absolutely nothing to do with my age. I do find it humurous, though, that you felt the need to belittle someone based on your perceptions of their age...

[Jason]

By the way, I hate to break it to you, but I'm not a 'kid'. The 17 in my name has absolutely nothing to do with my age. I do find it humurous, though, that you felt the need to belittle someone based on your perceptions of their age...

I wasn't refering to your age, rather the maturity level of your writing.

[Jenda]

OK, topics. Not personalities. Thanks.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@May 27 2005, 06:30 PM

The strong theme of good vs. evil in the original Star Wars trilogy is why I find it impossible to believe Lucas hasn't done some serious tailoring of his story so as to take some whacks at George W. Bush, as is the fad in Hollywood these days. 

That is a possibility...I don't like to generalize about any group of people...even "Hollywood".

To generalize about Hollywood is like saying all Mormons are close-minded and self-righteous, blindly following their Prophet. Or all Republicans are Christian fundamentalists.

It is over-generalizing and stereotyping.

I think that many people in Hollywood bash the president because they actually believe the statements they are making are true...they really believe...strongly...that Bush has some very misguided foreign policies. Maybe the younger, less informed actors, directors, etc. are just following a "fad" and being rebelious because its the cool thing to do. But I think that people like Lucas really believe their political positions to be true.

I used to believe that Bush's policies were misguided, but now I am not so sure...I have recently sworn to never make a political statement about things I am not certain about. So for me, Bush's policies are one big gray area, and I am unable to comment on them. In this case, I can't see any "absolute" right or wrong foreign policy. I will just observe and wait for history to decide who was right.

(of course if such things start to directly affect my life...such as a massive terrorist invasion of the United States, I will probably form stronger opinions! I suppose that makes me selfish.)

The real reason Anakin was wrong to say "You are either for me or against me" is that while the universal laws of good and evil are ultimately absolute -- black and white -- people most definitely come in shades of gray.  While it is one thing to have absolute fidelity to principle, no one should give absolute loyalty to a person -- with the possible exception of the Lord, who in any event is defined by being perfectly congruent with truth.  

I agree. Very well said.

Hmm ... interesting thought that just gave me.  It was legitimate for Christ, and Christ alone, to say "If you're not for me, you're against me" -- because He was perfect, and to be against him would be to be against truth and goodness themselves.

Assuming that an all-knowing, all-good God exists, He is the only one who has the right to say such a thing.

Extending that thought to the "You're either with us or with the terrorists," I would still agree -- but only if that phrase were understood as implying (as I believe it did) that the world must be with America on this particular question, because defeating jihadist terrorism seems to be a pretty clear-cut case.  It would have been presumptuous and absurd for an American president to suggest that other countries must be on America's side on every question (steel tariffs?  fisheries disputes?  the valuation of the yuan?), and I think it's pretty clear that's not what President Bush meant.

I agree. I hope it wasn't meant to carry over to the Iraq War, because although that is part of the war on terror, it was not as clear-cut that it was the only way to deal with the situation. As I said, I am still undecided if it was the right thing to do, and I am still waiting for the results.

Instead of having Obi-Wan object to Anakin's arrogance in misidentifying himself with Absolute Truth, entitled to absolute loyalty, Lucas has him spout a relativistic platitude that makes no sense in light of the whole Star Wars theme, and which Lucas himself can't possibly believe.  THAT'S the secret of the Jedi?  What a bunch of schmucks. 

As I said, Obi Wan should have been more clear. Perhaps he was objecting to "absolutes" where a person identifies himself with absolute truth.

Does Lucas believe morality is a relative? I don't think so...he makes it clear that killing innocents is evil...that democracy is good...empire is evil.

I think that where he sees things as relative is when he looks at a person and tries to decide if they are good or evil. Anakin has turned to the dark side. But Padme says there is still good in him. Luke says the same thing, and eventually Lucas proves this to be true when he has Vader kill the Emperor to rescue his son, and repent before his death in Episode 6.

So this means that although Darth Vader did things that were absolutely evil (no doubt about it), Darth Vader was not an absolutely evil person. There was still good in him.

So my opinion is that Lucas believes people can not make absolute statements about themselves or others, but that morality is absolute...the actions people take are absolutely good or evil...but the person is almost always a bit of both.

I think I agree with that, though there may be some exceptions.

Of course, knowing how hard it is to write dialogue (I'm working on a project and MAN, writing dialogue is tedious if you really want to make it sound right), I shouldn't be too hard on George.  But he missed a great opportunity to make an absolutely mythic point.   The First Commandment is basically God saying "I'm God; you're not.  Now listen."  I think there's a reason this basic lesson comes first.  Anakin's breaking this first principle would have been an incredibly powerful theme in Sith if it had been explored more fully.

Yes, as I said, Obi Wan could have elaborated on his statement and it would have made a more powerful statement. Maybe Lucas left his dialogue on purpose so we would be forced to think about it for ourselves and find our own conclusions (as you and I have done)...or maybe he is just a bad writer.

The problem is not that the Sith "deal in absolutes."  The problem is that they think they are absolutes.

Good way of stating it. Maybe Obi Wan should have said "Only a Sith thinks he is an absolute!" or "only a Sith demands uncompromising loyalty!"

[Guest]

i am wonderin' if G. Lucas is goin' to make the Dark Empire episodes (VII, VIII,IX) too.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by The Duke of Quakem@May 30 2005, 07:40 AM

i am wonderin' if G. Lucas is goin' to make the Dark Empire episodes (VII, VIII,IX) too.

I don't think so. He has publically stated over and over that he will not be making any more Star Wars movies (despite statements in the past that this was a 9 episode series).

Besides, I think the Dark Empire comics are too weak for a new trilogy. The idea of Luke turning to the Dark Side to defeat it from within is interesting, but the rest of the story is not very good, in my opinion. The World Devastators are basically the same thing as the Death Star...just more powerful...not very original. The Emperor returning as a Clone makes Darth Vader's sacrifice seem meaningless, and would cheapen episodes 1-6, since they were all about Darth Vader's fall and redemption. By killing Palpatine, the last of the Sith, he has fulfilled his destiny as "The Chosen One" and brought "balance to the Force".

The End.

Also, Mark Hammil, Carrie Fisher, Harrison Ford, etc. are too old to be in Dark Empire, which takes place only a few years after Return of the Jedi. New actors would be needed, and that would be terrible.

Besides, each new trilogy should have mostly new characters, and Dark Empire uses the same characters as Episode 4-6. Too redundant. It would make more sense to make a story about Luke, Han & Leia's children.

But they shouldn't bring back Palpatine as they did in Dark Empire...it just ruins the Vader story. I think that the "Chosen One" concept was not around when Dark Empire was written, so now Dark Empire is better as a story for people who want more Star Wars action, but as I said, it would cheapen the story of Anakin/Vader.

One other problem with sequals...they are all written in the comics & novels (such as Dark Empire)...there are dozens of novels chronicling the adventures of Luke, Leia, Han, Lando, Chewbacca, C3P0, R2D2, the Skywalker/Solo children, etc. So either the films would contradict the books/comics...or everyone who read them would already know the plots.

Sequals involving the Skywalker family seem unlikely.

On the other hand...

George Lucas has confirmed that he will be producing two TV series in the next few years. If I remember correctly, one is totally computer animated and will take place between Episode 2 and 3 (Clone Wars)...and the other will be a live action Star Wars series, possibly based between episode 3-4 (after Anakin becomes Vader, but before Luke matures). My guess is that it might be about the rest of the Jedi being hunted down? The lower level Jedi that were not killed yet in Episode 3? I think Lucas mentioned that the TV series would have new original characters. Maybe a new Jedi Knight on the run from the Empire?

There are also rumors that Lucas is thinking about a new trilogy or film set hundreds of years before Episode 1. The concept would be that the Sith are a larger cult of some sort, and have not yet been defeated by the Jedi.

(their defeat causes them to create the rule that only two Sith may exist at a time...Sideous/Maul, Sideous/Dooku, Sideous/Vader...so they can stay hidden and let only the strongest survive...hence the reason for their "revenge")

Maybe Yoda would be one of the heroes as a young Jedi Knight or Padawan who defeats the Sith? Maybe we would learn Yoda's history? Palpatine's history too...depending how old he is?

It would be a good idea, because it would allow for all new characters to be created. But likely, if this happened, Lucas would not direct them, because he said he was done with Star Wars movies, but maybe he would hand the job over to another director...maybe he would supervise or be there as a consultant?

And something I would love to see...a series about Han Solo's younger years based on the novels called "The Han Solo Trilogy"...those were written in the mid-90's. I thought they were very interesting and entertaining...seeing how Han Solo grows from a young boy into a smuggler...how he meets Chewbacca, Jabba, Bounty Hunters, etc. Lots of good material there for another film or TV series.

In any case, Star Wars is not over...there will be TV series, comics, novels...and I have a feeling SOMEONE will make a new film or trilogy if they can get the legal rights to do it. Its too much of a money-making machine to let it die.

[Jason]

There are also rumors that Lucas is thinking about a new trilogy or film set hundreds of years before Episode 1. The concept would be that the Sith are a larger cult of some sort, and have not yet been defeated by the Jedi.

(their defeat causes them to create the rule that only two Sith may exist at a time...Sideous/Maul, Sideous/Dooku, Sideous/Vader...so they can stay hidden and let only the strongest survive...hence the reason for their "revenge")

Maybe Yoda would be one of the heroes as a young Jedi Knight or Padawan who defeats the Sith? Maybe we would learn Yoda's history? Palpatine's history too...depending how old he is?

I would like to see something about the other "Darth" guy Palpatine told Anakin about. The one who learned to control life. That could be interesting. Did Yoda kill him?