Revenge of the Sith Easter Eggs

Ant writes "Via TheForce.Net, a StarWars.com article with a great list of Easter Eggs from the third prequel movie, Revenge of the Sith. There were many cameos and hidden images." From the article: " It's tiny, but visible enough to send a warm fuzzy through the hearts of original trilogy fans. In the establishing shot of the expansive Senate docking bays, there's a tiny Millennium Falcon easing into frame. And it's not just a non-descript Corellian freighter; it's on good authority -- namely George Lucas -- that this is the infamous hunk-of-junk before it came into the ownership of either Lando Calrissian or Han Solo."

Comments

huh?

[TheKidWho]

Who you calling a hunk o junk, that baby can do the kessel run in 12 parsecs!

Re:huh?

[sveiki_neliels]

You know, I've never really understood that line... I thought a parsec was a distance. ~3.26 l.y. specifically. Wouldn't you measure the speed of a ship by the time it takes to go a set distance?

Re:huh?

[croddy]

the kessel run, allegedly, was a test of maneuverability -- not of speed. a ship that could navigate a shorter route through a mess of spatial anomalies, asteroids, black holes, etc., was an admirable ship.

Re:huh?

[multipartmixed]

Maybe the FTL drive actually folds space, and "any old ship" is assumed to be able to achieve X% of light speed on it's regular engines?

Then, the relative speed worthiness of a ship could be measured in parsecs... Say, a lousier ship could only fold space "hard enough" to make the ship's regular engines have to travel, say, 18 parsecs?

That said, 12 parsecs is pretty far even for very large (but 1) values of X. It would be kind of like bragging about how fast your car could drive from SF to NY and back six times.

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

the kessel run might be "how far can you go in 2 seconds, from 0 velocity?"

Re:huh?

[iocat]

That's the best back-explanation of what was clearly -- to me anyway -- a classic science gaff I've ever seen.

Of course, the Kessel Run being measured in parsecs pales to the line from "Real Genius" -- "Is that liquid nitrogen?" after Chris Knight uses a saw to slice a very solid piece of frozen matter that he got out of a freeze. RG is still a great movie though.

Re:huh?

[EvanED]

It is. There are sort of two schools of thought about Han meant.

Croddy gives one explanation (the maneuverability test).

The other is that Han was just boasting nonsense deliberately to try to impress Luke and Obi-Wan to see if they were suckers. Had they been impressed, had would have charged them more.

Re:huh?

[NanoGator]

"the kessel run, allegedly, was a test of maneuverability -- not of speed. a ship that could navigate a shorter route through a mess of spatial anomalies, asteroids, black holes, etc., was an admirable ship."

The author who wrote that bit into his book was trying to cover for George's mistake.

Re:huh?

[nacturation]

No doubt that was an after-the-fact explanation of why the script was wrong. In context, Kenobi asks if it's a fast ship, to which Han replies asking if he's never heard of the Millenium Falcon... and then gives the Kessel run quote followed by "She's fast enough for you, old man."

So we have two scenarios... George Lucas, who isn't an astrophysicist, writes a script with what he thinks are correct terms but they turn out to be incorrect and everybody agrees that not all movies are perfect. Or, Star Wars is *never* wrong, man... must... find... alternate explanation! Han, uh... *knew* that the info was wrong and did it to test them or something. Or maybe when talking about fast ships, you give an example about maneuverability, something which a space barge going in a straight line and plowing the asteroids out of the way could have bested.

Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

Re:huh?

[damiam]

The other is that Han was just boasting nonsense deliberately to try to impress Luke and Obi-Wan to see if they were suckers. Had they been impressed, had would have charged them more.

But if they recognized the BS, they would have avoided him as a pilot who didn't know WTF he was doing.

Re:huh?

[EvanED]

Or just recognized the boast for what it was. I could see something like that being somewhat commonplace.

Re:huh?

[Fortyseven]

If you REALLY wanted to spread the BS a little more... we could take the "test of maneuverability" explanation as fact and say that Han was purposely trying to do a verbal slight of hand of sorts... Perhaps the Falcon isn't as fast as he'd like his potential passengers to believe, and he was trying to confuse, hoping they wouldn't know what a parsec really is. Lie to make a quick cred? Sure, why not.

Bless you Star Trek for giving the fans the ability to bullshit their way out of even the worst writing. ;D

Re:huh?

[Chess_the_cat]

There is an alternative explanation I'm willing to accept: Han doesn't know wtf he's talking about but likes to sound like he does. In fact, if you gauge Obi Wan's reaction to that line--a glance and a raised eyebrow to Luke--it seems feasible that this is the correct explanation.

Re:huh?

[adagioforstrings]

Ya know, Episode II or III does have definitely correct usage of parsecs in one of the lines. Maybe they're trying to prove they definitely do know what it measures. Now anyway.

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I had always assumed that the Kessel run was a set time to go as far as you could. Pretend the Kessel run is 5 minutes...A slow ships "makes it" in 6 parsecs, while a fast ship makes it in 12.

Re:huh?

[Knara]

Yeah, I've always liked that explanation a lot more. It fits in better with Solo's personality.

Re:huh?

[upmufa]

When doing some physics (like quantum field theory) it is useful to adopt unit conventions where c=1. Using this convention, space and time would have same dimension. How long a time is 12 parsecs? It's the amount of time it takes light to travel 12 parsecs. In this unit system, speeds are dimensionless which might explain: "She'll make .5 past light speed."

Re:huh?

[Lord Apathy]

The first explanation makes more sense and you would assume that an experienced star pilot would know what they are talking about. But I like the second one better for the same reason. "It fits in better with Solo's personality."

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it was explained in a book...he went so close to a black hole or something that he actually shortened the distance of the Kessel Run.

Re:huh?

[hazem]

Remember, Ben had already been talking with Chewie, so he would have known (surely through his homework of communing with Kwi Gon, or the history with Yoda), that Chewie was okay.

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Norway we measure the speeds of cars in kilometers per hour. When asked about a speed we usually say just "100 kilometers", not "100 kilometers per hour"

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why would he boast that the ship could do less than 12 parsecs

Re:huh?

[Chalupa]

If I read correctly, and I think I read it on this site, the Kessel Run was a smuggling race.
Somewhere along the route, you had to stop somewhere and deal with a "middleman" of some sort. Han reportedly figured out a way to bypass this middleman, therefore being able to boast that he finished the race in twelve parsecs.
If at first you don't succeed, sky diving is not for you.
Chalupa

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is being given in Einstein's geometricized units. To extract layman's time, divide by the speed of light. George Lucas, of course, got his Ph.D. in physics from Chandrasekhar at the University of Chicago... to the master, units matter not.

Re:huh?

[LooseChanj]

Also explains why it takes him so long to set up light speed jumps.

It's more likely Lucas doesn't know wtf he's talking about though.

Re:huh?

[blincoln]

Ya know, Episode II or III does have definitely correct usage of parsecs in one of the lines. Maybe they're trying to prove they definitely do know what it measures. Now anyway.

Too bad the chances of anyone using "parsec" as a unit of distance who isn't Earth-descended is so remote as to be nonexistent.

Re:huh?

[tomhudson]

It's more likely Lucas doesn't know wtf he's talking about though.

... after seeing Star Wars 3, its obvious Lucas doesn't know when to leave well enough alone, either.

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

The book "The Hutt Gambit" by A. C. Crispin explains the subject and makes it very clear that Han does indeed know what he is talking about. I also don't think that if han was bluffing he was doing to look smart; insulting the ship was more of an insult than han would take appearing clueless to be.

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. The middleman (Moorth Doole) does not normally exist, but was in this case attempting to board the falcon and steal the glitterstim without having to pay Han. Han escaped by diving dangerously close to the black hole cluster but lost the cargo in the process. As a result Jabba dosent get the delivery (hence the scene in the dock in EpIV) and han goes in to debt (whole "Frezing in carbonite" debacle.

However your statement is so wrong, I wonder if i've been trolled.

Re:huh?

[double-oh three]

The other explination that's always made sense to me was that the Kessel run meant you needed to skirt the Maw, a cluster of Black Holes. The faster the ship is, the closer it can get to the Black Holes without getting sucked in by the gravitational forces. Therefor 13 parsecs shows that it's fast enough to be only x distance from the Black Holes and get out fine. Ignoreing of course the relativistic implications, which the series as a whole ignores as well. Hyperspace isn't exactly another dimension, as you can't jump that close to a planet and you can get pulled out of hyperspace by a strong enough gravic field.

So it makes a twisted sort of sense once you ignore the improbablility of FTL travel.

Re:huh?

[Buran]

Too bad the chances of anyone speaking English who lived in another galaxy, prior to the existence of the human race (presumablyare so remote as to be nonexistent.

Re:huh?

[Bitsy Boffin]

More than that, a parsec is a unit of distance derived from 1 AU (astronomical unit, roughly the distance between the sun and the mean orbit of the earth around it).

This means that a parsec has no meaning for people not from earth, or at least from a planet with a very similar orbit to the earth around it's own star.

One might say that's OK, perhaps Han comes from such a planet, but it stands to reason that in a galaxy where there are so many sentient beings in constant contact, coming from many different planets (and moons), that a parsec would be wholly unsuitable to convey information.

You might say that "yeah, but remember all these languages are being "translated" for us into english, Parsec is just the 'human' trsnslation of the distance measurement they use". But that's highly improbable, that thier universal distance measurement is exactly or even closely equivalent to a parsec.

At the end of the day, we have to remember that Star Wars is not science fiction, it's fantasy, there is a big difference, in fantasy the author doesn't need to (nor should they) explain stuff, in sci-fi they do, or at least write explainable stuff.

Re:huh?

[adolfojp]

There are many explanations but I have this one. A ton is differet in England than in America. A parsec is different in a long time ago in a galaxy far far away than on modern day earth. Enjoy.

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Han doesn't know wtf he's talking about but likes to sound like he does. In fact, if you gauge Obi Wan's reaction to that line

No, Han knows what it's about- he's just testing Obiwan + Luke to see if They understand the rudiments of space travel. If not, he can fly around in circles and jack up the price, and they won't even know how he's wasting their time.

The reaction they gave showed they weren't clueless newbies.

Re:huh?

[nacturation]

Right, and just how many black holes can you have in 12 parsecs? If there were more than one, let alone a cluster, the gravity would be so strong they'd eat each other up. So that explanation is bogus. Face it, it's an error in the script. No amount of after-the-fact hand waving will fix it. Might as well get Lucas to edit the dialog to change it to something else. But just remember that Han shot first and Han definitely said 12 parsecs.

Re:huh?

[genus babbage]

And yet they speak english...

Blame the translator :p

Re:huh?

[AndroidCat]

"Good perogrammer? I've been doing .NET for 10 years..."

Re:huh?

[aneochron]

I do agree with the maneuverability stuff, but there are more strange stuff in Han's lines.

He says it goes "1.5 past lightspeed", which is indeed extremely slow for traveling the distances in the movies. It would take hundreds of years to get from one planet to another, to say the least.

Re:huh?

[F34nor]

Google says...
1 Parsec = 3.08568025 × 1016 meters
Hunh?
Wikipedia says..

"parallax of one arc second", and is approximately 19,131,554,073,600 (19 trillion) miles.

Ok so it is a messure of distance, so wouldn't that mean that this would be a messure of the prowess of the navigational computer rather than the velocity?

Re:huh?

[toph42]

From StarWars.com databank:
The term Kessel Run came to encompass a number of smuggler methods designed to separate spice cargoes from licensed Imperial shippers. One particular method saw the quick distribution of spice along a slowly moving train of cargo freighters, while another approach was just a pure contest of raw speed that skirted dangerously close to the black holes of the Maw Cluster. A smuggler that managed to shave off a sizable portion of the 18-parsec Kessel Run had bragging rights indeed.

Re:huh?

[blincoln]

Too bad the chances of anyone speaking English who lived in another galaxy, prior to the existence of the human race (presumably) are so remote as to be nonexistent.

Look at the computer displays. They're only speaking English because a movie in a synthetic, fictional language wouldn't do very well in theaters.

Lucas was very good about not using human-specific terminology in almost every other way. I figure he just didn't realize at the time that a "parsec" is so specifically tied to the Babylonians and their base-60 numerical system.

Re:huh?

[Buran]

Yeah, I know, I was trying to make a point that people are being overly critical and not really just enjoying the story -- though I have to admit that as a science geek I can't stand that line either -- I do twitch when I hear it. I know it's a writer's goof that the tech/science consultant missed, but if you want to come up with an answer, the 'Most Efficent Trajectory' theory could work as choosing a balance between trip length and fuel requirements (for instance, Galileo's long circituous path to Jupiter and Cassini's long trip to Saturn) is a very important part of planning a space mission. (For instance, you don't need heat shields on your antenna and RTGs at Jupiter, but you do when you're swooping past the Sun, so Galileo had a few seemingly-unneeded parts). The trajectories could have been more direct, but that'd require a more powerful booster and a more complicated spacecraft -- both more expensive.

There was originally some English text on some consoles in the first three movies, and that was one of the things that was fixed via digital post-production for the DVD versions.

Re:huh?

[Buran]

Oops, misposted my reply (here) as a reply to my own comment, so this comment exists so that you get a notification e-mail. Sorry!

Re:huh?

[KanSer]

Actually it wasn't maneuverability but pure speed. See, the Kessel run grazes what is affectionately called the Maw. It' a bunch of black holes next to eachother ripping time apart. Somehow Kessel and the destination (jump point?) are on other sides of the maw. The less distance you take around the Kessel Run = more horse power because you were much closer to the event horizon.

Make sense?

(I prefer it to be correct as a whole universe than be some obvious flaw. Plus, it gave Timothy Zahn one hell of a plot device. Secret weapons development? Genius! Out of touch female general of star destroyer battle group? That's hot.)

Re:huh?

[nacturation]

See, the Kessel run grazes what is affectionately called the Maw. It' a bunch of black holes next to eachother ripping time apart.

And all these black holes are within 20 parsecs of each other? Uh-huh.

Make sense?

In a contrived, I'm-in-denial kind of way, yes. :)

Re:huh?

[mink]

Dude! Black holes are like space whirlpools. Ever play Dragons Lair? The Falcon is like Dirk in that barrel with a paddle. ;-)

Re:huh?

[mink]

This does not make sense as the reason Han dumped his load was due to Imperials that might search his ship. Did you even watch the films? It's in the dialog clear as day.

More Money!

[carterhawk001]

Phase1: Relase Movie
Phase2: Profit
Phase3: Release Easter Egg List
Phase4: More Profit!!

Re:More Money!

[h4rm0ny]

Phase3.5: Buy shares in Lucas Arts and plug the movie incessantly on your 'Stuff That Matters' website.

Re:More Money!

[TrappedByMyself]

You forgot a few phases...

Phase1: Relase Movie
Phase2: Endless cryboy bitching
Phase3: Profit
Phase4: Endless cryboy bitching
Phase5: Release Easter Egg List
Phase6: Endless cryboy bitching
Phase7: More Profit!!
Phase8: Endless cryboy bitching

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Posted for a few minute and barely any comments! The trolls must be reading the article.

Interesting reference...

[ArbiterOne]

In the original trilogy, the characters visit cellblock 1138, a reference to Lucas' film THX 1138.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_egg_(virtual)

Re:Interesting reference...

[Leroy_Brown242]

ooooo, I hadn't heard that one!

Re:Interesting reference...

[Richy_T]

The sarcasm thread was a couple of days ago...

Re:Interesting reference...

[Leroy_Brown242]

DAMN!

I always miss the good threads.

Re:Interesting reference...

[EnronHaliburton2004]

Towards the end of THX 1138, as the characters approach the city shell, and there are some shots of the guards picking up wierd lifeforms. There's a bunch of radio chatter during which one of the guards says "I think I hit a Wookie back there".

Re:Interesting reference...

[Anonymous Coward]

I love you!!!! someone plz mod this funny!

Re:Interesting reference...

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't see it, there are counters hiding every Easter Egg ! :(

Re:Interesting reference...

[Perryman]

About the 1138 reference... there is reference to 1138 in _every_ one of george lucas' films. Yes, including star wars III. i'm shocked the list of easter eggs did not mention the episode III occurance, since it's an easter egg in _all_ the movies.

Re:Interesting reference...

[MichaelSmith]

I know this is OT

Ridley Scott reused graphics from Blade Runner in Alien. It is in the control panel of the police car at the start of Blade Runner and in the escape pod at the end of Alien.

I think both diretors were just being lazy. Other people interpret this as cleverness.

Re:Interesting reference...

[Badfysh]

This is from memory, but I'm pretty sure Luke says to Artoo on the radio they're in garbage masher THX1138 as well.

Re:Interesting reference...

[QuatermassX]

The number "3263827" is imprinted in my brain and is the number used the in film.
Speaking of discusive Star Wars things, surprised no one mentioned "TK421" (Stormtooper ID used in the film instead of THX1138) and BOOGIE NIGHTS - was it really a piece or feature of hi-fi equipment?

Re:Interesting reference...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean 'from Alien in Blade Runner', as Alien came out in 1979, and Blade Runner in 1982.

Re:Interesting reference...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe that should be 'ooo ooo ooo, havent heard that one....', Leroy.

Re:Interesting reference...

[Badfysh]

I had the DVD to hand so I checked it out, and you are exactly right. Must be my Alzheimer's kicking in...

Re:Interesting reference...

[Koiu Lpoi]

'However, the true meaning of "THX 1138" is much more mundane: it is actually George Lucas' old phone number from the apartment where he lived as a college student.'
Here.

Too late

[biryokumaru]

I wish they'd told me that before I'd seen the movie three times...

Re:Too late

[Leroy_Brown242]

Don't even try to pretend that after 3 times in a week or so, you're not going to be seeing it again a few times. :)

Re:Too late

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude!! You saw it three times and did not notice? Get some glasses!

Re:Too late

[NanoGator]

"I wish they'd told me that before I'd seen the movie three times..."

It's not their fault you missed em all three times!

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

How wonderful. I am overflowing with joy.

yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, aren't we over with it now.

Easter Eggs & Christmas Presents

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone else agree that the timecode-stamped copy of ROTS going around on the Internet was released intentionally by LucasFilms to attract viewers to the theatre and increase interest?

Re:Easter Eggs & Christmas Presents

[Anonymous Coward]

yes of course it was. It was released for that very purpose and also to round up a few torrent sites and deliberately make an example of them.

ps Taco can you sort this shit out:

Slow Down Cowboy!

Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been 5 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

Re:Easter Eggs & Christmas Presents

[Anonymous Coward]

I kept getting that minutes passed being more than minutes required yesterday. I don't think they are looking into it.

Re:Easter Eggs & Christmas Presents

[Badfysh]

It's entirely possible, it didn't hurt the first episode of Dr. Who when that appeared on the net. Viral marketing is becoming a science on its own. They know that people like to be naughty and like free stuff, but that ROTS video isn't a keeper, it's just poor enough quality to make you want to buy the DVD when it comes out...

And another thing; it's always "geek interest" stuff that appears, stuff that us geeks will know how to get. Coincidence?

Re:Easter Eggs & Christmas Presents

[SwItCH_LiVEs]

You and I think exactly the same.

Reminds me of that VW commercial, who VW finally decided "not to sue"

Gee wonder why? Because it was their own marketing agent dipping their toe in internet waters?

Re:Easter Eggs & Christmas Presents

[Badfysh]

You and I think exactly the same

More than you know, I was going to mention that VW ad but I changed my mind. How many fingers am I holding up..?

What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[nurhussein]

(Warning : spoilers)

He went straight into "evil mode" right after Palpatine gives him the Darth Vader title. It's like there's a "good/evil" toggle switch he pushed (maybe that's what the buttons on Darth Vader's suit is) to turn him evil. No conflicted feelings. Nothing. He could have at least said "I'm sorry for what I'm about to do" to the younglings. Anakin wasn't evil enough yet to slaughter children. He should have been obeying his new master's orders but hating them, and hating himself too... it would have been much much more tragic that way.

In the end, Obi-Wan should have tried to bring him back to the good side much the way Luke did ("Obi-Wan once thought as you do"). The fight would have been much more personal then. They should be not wanting to fight each other, but both are compelled to... that would have made awesome drama. But no....

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Anonymous Coward]

He should have been obeying his new master's orders but hating them, and hating himself too

Did you notice the tear running down his check after he killed the separatist leaders? I think he was hating himself.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[advocate_one]

Anakin wasn't evil enough yet to slaughter children.

bzzt, yes he was... don't forget that in EPII he slaughtered an entire village to avenge his mother's death...

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[sg3000]

>> He should have been obeying his new master's orders but
>> hating them, and hating himself too

> Did you notice the tear running down his check after he killed
> the separatist leaders? I think he was hating himself.

That's exactly what I saw. He had tears running down his face after he killed the younglings and after he killed the Separatist leaders. Note that before he decided to interfere with Mace Windu confronting Sideous, he brooded in the Jedi Temple for what looked like hours.

He was doing what he had to do to become powerful enough to learn how to keep Padme from dying. He probably thought he would then kill Darth Sideous, and make himself Emperor (since eliminating the Senate would make things more efficient to ensure stability for the galaxy)

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm. You missed the first part of the movie where he kills the Sith Lord after having cut both his hands off. I also don't think you saw the second film. Gradual progression. But you have to pay attention to see it. Greed is also a pretty potent incentive.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate oneself for doing what is necessary?

I used to be a nice guy but after I realized that I would never get promoted to a manager at my company if I stayed like that, So, I taught myself to lie, cheat and backstab (that is, office politics) and you know what? It has worked and it wasn't that dramatic or hard to pull off.

In Anakin's case, I can only appreciate his resolve: if you are going to sin, don't just dabble in it but embrace it instead!

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[emandres]

Hold on! You honestly don't believe the loser who played Anakin is capable of that kind of drama, do you? If they had actually found a decent actor for Anakin in II and III it would have made the ending a lot better.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, kill a dozen childred so save one. That shouldn't of not been in there. How can you forgive Vader knowing what he did? Sure it is war, but when do you condone killing women and children in a coup?

And what the fuck is this "younglings". Yoda could say it in AotC but Obi-wan and others, their your own race for christs sake show some respect.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure it is war, but when do you condone killing women and children in a coup?

Well, killing women and children in the ongoing liberation of Iraq doesn't seem to bother the Jesusland. Just get'em ter'ists. Smoke'em outta their holes!

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Anonymous Coward]

"No conflicted feelings. Nothing. He could have at least said "I'm sorry for what I'm about to do" to the younglings."

You must of missed the shots of him in tears.

The point was that he would do anything to save her as well as bring peace. Anything. Although he didn't outright say that he didn't want to kill all those people, it is expressed.

I'm sick of people saying this. He did not just instantly flip. He was not without regret.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[wrf3]

Sure, kill a dozen childred to save one.

Since others have injected politics into the discussion (in other threads, e.g. the "if you're not with me you're against me" discussion), this is the one of the rationales used to defend embryonic stem-cell research.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly what I saw. He had tears running down his face after he killed the younglings and after he killed the Separatist leaders. Note that before he decided to interfere with Mace Windu confronting Sideous, he brooded in the Jedi Temple for what looked like hours.


Two tears and a couple hours 'brooding' is enought to go from 'good' to 'Evil'????

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said forgive. You think Darth Vader is supposed to be the good guy?

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Anonymous Coward]

but when do you condone killing women and children in a coup?

When it is the most efficient/effective plan of action.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[UpnAtom]

Oh God, it was awful wasn't it.

The whole audience went "Huh?!"

Part of the problem was how Sidious' face changed. The the audience knew what that meant but Anakin didn't. If Anakin had showed a strong sympathetic response, that would have helped. Instead just "What have I done?" and you're trying to figure out why Jedis with their discipline training are much easier to 'turn' than your average chimp.

I remember having to obliterate my memory of what I just saw to prevent it spoiling the rest of the movie for me.

Palpatine's dialogue sucked too. They should have got Alastair Campbell to write it. Even I could make a more convincing case for the Dark Side.

I'd simply get rid of all the younglings references. Hacking up a few separatists seems mild in comparison.

In case this post annoys any Lucas fanboys, I'll say that apart from a few other unexplained plot elements (how exactly does Sidious know about Padme? how does Order 66 work?), the film was fantastic and had a lasting effect on me. One of the consequences of Anakin remaining good until the conversion is that he's a lot more of a sympathetic character (whereas I didn't care one bit in Ep 2).

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Anonymous Coward]

"Here's your problem; someone set this thing to 'evil'."

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure it is war, but when do you condone killing women and children in a coup?

What a sexist comment.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Man in Spandex]

In the end, Obi-Wan should have tried to bring him back to the good side much the way Luke did ("Obi-Wan once thought as you do"). The fight would have been much more personal then.

Yeah you're telling me.

Obi-Wan: YOU WERE LIKE A BROTHER TO MEEEEEEE!

Then Obi-Wan leaves, not even trying to help him just like Yoda who tries once and proclaims that he failed.

Luke never met his father until he discovered the truth and he still tried to bring him to the good side of the force. Obi-Wan trained Anakin from the start, created a strong bond between both and he just gives up on him.

The story of Ep3 was far too rushed.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Paralizer]

Remember "the force is a powerful influence on weak minds"? By that point in the movie, Anakin had already killed Jacksons character after being tricked by Palpatine. He was crying help, Anakin stepped in and Palpatine quickly got up and killed Jackson. Anakin was probably stunned, and with the combination of killing a Jedi and his previous admitted "being lost", Palpatine moved in and pretty much took him over. Anakin never really had a chance, he was weakened by his hate (as Yoda said in one of the eariler movies), and Palpatine just picked him up and put him in his pocket.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[ankhank]

You're seeing the problems with the Force 1.0 universe -- it's a binary, two-bit universe. Everything's black and white, morally speaking.

Universe 2.0 is 8-bit and has grayscale morality.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[be-fan]

That wasn't evil, it was anger. And those weren't children he knew, they were random members of a people who had wronged him. Killing jedi trainees he knew is quite different. Now, I don't think it would have been a problem if Lucas hadn't played up the "he's good now" thing. He spends the entire first half of the movie kissing Obi Wan's ass. Perhaps Lucas was trying to convey that Anakin's behavior in the first half was superficial, and he's underlying nature hadn't changed at all, but he doesn't have the directoral skills to pull off something that subtle, and Christensen wouldn't have been able to make it convincing anyway.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[sg3000]

> Luke never met his father until he discovered the truth and he
> still tried to bring him to the good side of the force. Obi-Wan
> trained Anakin from the start, created a strong bond between
> both and he just gives up on him.

It's not a flaw. That's the whole point of the movie. Lucas talks about the duality of nature and the circular nature of violence. In each character, there is good and evil. More specifically, evil exists in good and good exists in evil. At the same time, violence begets violence, so the only way to end the cycle of violence is to refuse to fight. The only character who knows this as true is Luke Skywalker.

Obi-Wan tells Yoda he can't kill Anakin even after what Anakin had done (killed Younglings and aligned himself with Darth Sideous). Yoda tells him that Anakin is dead ("consumed by Darth Vader"). Obi-Wan accepts that reluctantly, and he confronts him. Obi-Wan tries to bring Anakin back, but he is too quick to use violence as his solution.

Luke on the other hand, throws away his lightsaber, and refuses to kill his father, which brings Anakin back (the spark of Anakin that was left in Vader). Anakin then kills Sideous (sacrificing himself) instead of allowing Sideous to kill Luke, and completes the fulfillment of the prophesy.

What people see as inconsistencies are often illustrations of the greater themes in the movies. Yoda was wise in Episode V, but he acted foolishly in Episodes II and III. Of course that makes sense, because how does one gain wisdom except by learning from one's mistakes? Yoda figures out that by Episode V that wars do not make one great. The events of Episode II and III taught him that. Except, Yoda did not learn one lesson between Episodes II and III: that he should not have given up on Anakin.

Luke for all his poor formal Jedi training understood that and that's why he prevailed in the end.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Rob_Bryerton]

Universe 2.0 is 8-bit and has grayscale morality./i>

You're either with us, or against us, or.... well, 254 other things

Two-bit universe indeed ;)

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[be-fan]

Bzzt. Wrong. Nobody rationalizes killing many children to save one. Proponents of stem cell research reject the very idea that embroys are children. Even if it was, it would be "kill a few children to save thousands", but not that many embroys are necessary to maintain viable stem cell lines, at least relative to how many people that could be saved by the technology.

Now, it's up to you to decide whether you think embroys are children, or whether its worth it to kill a few to save many, but either way, its intellectualy dishonest to mischaracterize the arguments of your opponents, so I suggest you avoid doing so in the future.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[be-fan]

Women and children are just people. People die in wars. In fact, they die all the time. Sometimes, them dying in wars can prevent other women and children fro dying as a result of the status quo.

Besides, you're not supposed to forgive Vader. You're supposed to realize that Vader and Anakin aren't the same person.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Anonymous Coward]

They were children brought up from the start to become warriors. I see no ethical/moral problem in killing them (when not fighting on their side).

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[jason_ukfsn]

Did it not occur to you that Sidious knew about Padme because he had influenced Anakin to have those dreams or that perhaps Anakin had confided them to him?

As for Order 66 that's fairly easy - we know that Sidious was behind the commissioning of the Clones so it's a reasonable assumption that he had some programming input.

I agree that the film was fantastic. Up until I saw ROTS I never believed Lucas when I heard him claim that Vader is the central character of all of the films. For me the whole focus of all of the films changed after watching ROTS.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Anonymous Coward]

Misspell once, shame on you. Misspell twice, shame on me. Misspell three times, GET A FUCKING DICTIONARY.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Ucklak]

I don't see these movies as a religion but just a lot of fun.

In keeping with with logic of episode 3, Palpatine did tell a story of Darth Plageious (sp?) being able to manipulate minds and that (as you assume) he was able to take that power.

I read a review that stated that Anakin turned into 'evil mode' in a jiffy so I made a mental note to pay attention to that scene and cope up with my own interpretation.

I didn't see it that way. I saw Anakin as not having his own standard and cared more about saving his wife than his own morals. This 'evil mode' was merely the emperor that make that switch for him subconsciously and it didn't become personal until he killed the separatists (that evil eye thing).

The whole 'bow down' scene looked like Anakin was forced (no jokes about acting) to submit to his newmaster.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Anonymous Coward]

But he was evil enough to slaughter a group of Tusken raiders and their famlies in AOTC. Or does the fact that he went all genocidal on the Star Wars equivalent of "brown" people not count as actual evil? Amazingly, when Anakin told Padme of his evil deed, she still loved him. I guess women really are suckers for bad boys.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[ceswiedler]

Yeah, I kind of thought there should be some sort of 'dark ritual' which Anakin reluctantly agreed to, which bonded him to Palpatine and the Dark Side. He mentions in ROTJ that the dark side is too powerful for him to leave, even if he wanted to. At the end of ROTS, When Padme questioned what he was doing, he could have said "I did it for you; I wish I could undo it, but I can't".

I agree Obi-Wan and Anakin's fight would have been much more interesting if there had been that internal conflict in Anakin. It's my favority part of ROTJ, when you see that Vader would like to leave the dark side, but can't.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[NanoGator]

"He was doing what he had to do to become powerful enough to learn how to keep Padme from dying. He probably thought he would then kill Darth Sideous, and make himself Emperor (since eliminating the Senate would make things more efficient to ensure stability for the galaxy)"

If Episode II had been a better movie, this could have been a real good point. (err I mean point in the movie, not your point.) Instead of basically just a one-liner saying how he'd run the galaxy, it would have been more interesting for him to 'see' lack of order in the galaxy causing chaos.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[cpt kangarooski]

Sure, try it sometime.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[wrf3]

Proponents of stem cell research reject the very idea that embroys are children

They are genetically complete human beings. It doesn't matter what end of the timeline they are on.

Even if it was, it would be "kill a few children to save thousands"

Killing one is one too many.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[sg3000]

> Instead of basically just a one-liner saying how he'd run the
> galaxy, it would have been more interesting for him to 'see'
> lack of order in the galaxy causing chaos.

It wasn't just a one-liner. Anakin's feelings about this were all through Episodes II and III.

In Episode II, there was the whole discussion between Padme and Anakin on Naboo. Anakin says the system doesn't work. Padme asked how would he make it work.

Anakin: We need a system where the politicians sit down and discuss the problems, agree what's in the best interests of all the people, and then do it.

Padme: That is exactly what we do. The trouble is that people don't
wlways agree. In fact, they hardly ever do.

Anakin: Then they should be made to.

Padme: By whom? Who's going to make them?

Anakin: I don't know. Someone.

Padme: You?

Anakin: Of course not me.

Padme: But someone.

Anakin: Someone wise.

Padme: That sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me.

Anakin: Well, if it works...

Anakin in the scene can tell that Padme is shocked, so he plays it off that he's joking. Padme can't believe that Anakin feels that way so she assumes he's just kidding.

In Episode III, when Obi-Wan laments that the Senate is going to vote for more direct power under Palpatine, Anakin is pleased because it will help them make decisions faster and fight more effectively.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[chriso11]

People seem to forget that Palpatine had been screwing with Anakin's mind for a decade or so. He was always twisting things, and so that Anakin was never really sure of anything.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't have characters just announce how they're feeling! That makes me feel angry!

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the consequences of Anakin remaining good until the conversion is that he's a lot more of a sympathetic character (whereas I didn't care one bit in Ep 2).

The only part of that I agree with is the parenthetical part. Well, the sentiment is good, but I would say, "Anakin would be a lot more of a sympathetic character if he remained good until the conversion."

In TPM Anakin was arrogant and aloof. He wanted to right the wrongs through force. The Jedi didn't approve his training, because they thought he would turn. In AotC he was arrogant and petulent. He thought he was better than all the other jedi, and he didn't follow the jedi code. He wanted to replace the democracy with a strong leader who would force peace on people. The jedi were concerned about him turning. RotS is actually the first time he showed signs of being a light-side jedi. Of course, he was still arrogant and impatient. I can't generate much sympathy when a bad kid turns into a bad adult.

I would much rather have seen Anakin be a shining example of goodness. Always out to do the right thing. A kid with great potential who was always eager to learn. Then you have him start learning from Palpatine, who teaches that right and wrong are not clear-cut. He finds himself doing bad things thinking that the end justifies the means, and soon he has no more compassion. That's a fall.

Also, in ANH, Vader says, "When last we met I was but the learner. Now, I am the master." The Anakin we see in the prequels has thought himself beyond Obi-Wan since early in AotC. I can't see him admitting that he wasn't the best, he's just too arrogant.

how does Order 66 work?

That's one that bothered me, too. I consider it a small plot hole, since I didn't buy into any of the important plot points. The easy explanation is that since the clones were engineered, it was just programmed in. But genetics don't deal in that kind of detail, it has to be trained. How is it that every clone in the army knows about the order, but not a single jedi? The clones are supposed to be better than droids because they are humans who can think for themselves, so why do they turn on the jedi that they have worked so closely with without the slightest hesitation? Why is it that the jedi, who are accomplished solo fighters who can see slightly into the future don't even notice the clones killing them? (Except for Yoda. I was hoping that he would be saved by the Wookies. He was the only jedi with non-clone allies around to protect him. Instead, he survived by just being SO much better than everyone else.)

I didn't like the movie. Can you tell?

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember "the force is a powerful influence on weak minds"?

Does anyone else get the impression that Lucas is racist? I'm not thinking about Jar-Jar, here. Beyond the general elitism that the fate of the galaxy is determined by a few special people, even. I'm talking about mind tricks. Mind tricks only work on the weak minded. They work great on stormtroopers, because they have been genetically conditioned to be more receptive to orders. Now, who else do they work (or not work) on?

Watto, the junk dealer: Qui-Gon tries to buy parts from him through a mind trick. Watto explains that mind tricks don't work on him, not because he is strong-minded, but because of his species. Now, why would he explain that when it never occurs to him that Qui-Gon might actually be a jedi? You could change that one line of exposition to explain that it's hard to persuade a junk dealer in matters involving money, even if you are a jedi. But no, he isn't allowed to resist through willpower, only species.

Boss Nass, leader of the Gungans: This guy is a king. He is in charge of a race of warrior people. He falls for the mind trick without the slightest hesitation.

Padme Amidala: Anakin tells her that mind tricks wouldn't work on her, because she is strong-minded. The little white girl is obviously too strong to influence.

The exception to this rule is Jabba. He's actually an ugly alien with a strong willpower.

I don't know, it just seems to me that Lucas doesn't give much credit to the intelligence or willpower of non-humans. Considering how open he was about putting aliens in important roles, it seems a bit odd.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[UpnAtom]

My guess is as good as yours.

However, needing to guess leaves most of us unsatisfied. The art of film-making requires that the viewer is given clues, preferably ahead of time.

The annoying thing is that these are amateur mistakes.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[UpnAtom]

RotS is actually the first time he showed signs of being a light-side jedi. Of course, he was still arrogant and impatient. I can't generate much sympathy when a bad kid turns into a bad adult.

One of the sympathy generating scenes was Palpatine ordering Anakin to kill Dooku.

I would much rather have seen Anakin be a shining example of goodness. Always out to do the right thing. A kid with great potential who was always eager to learn. Then you have him start learning from Palpatine, who teaches that right and wrong are not clear-cut. He finds himself doing bad things thinking that the end justifies the means, and soon he has no more compassion. That's a fall.

Would have been better but predictable unless you did it from Obi-Wan & Padme's point of view and filled in the Palpatine scenes afterwards.

Simply agree with everything else you wrote.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Anonymous Coward]

Misspell three times [...]

... can't get fooled again!

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[NoMaster]

Lucas talks about the duality of nature and the circular nature of violence.

Or maybe Lucas just makes shit up and jams it into plot holes?

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[SensitiveMale]

Luke for all his poor formal Jedi training understood that and that's why he prevailed in the end.

Ahh, you had me until that last sentence.

Luke received very good training. Yoda knew exactly how to train him for the reasons you mentioned.

Remember the jedi training and the "cave" scene? That was to teach Luke not to kill Vader because if he did he would kill himself.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Anonymous Coward]

"Note that before he decided to interfere with Mace Windu"

I haven't seen the film yet but that line just scares me.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a phenomenally ignorant troll.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[be-fan]

They are genetically complete human beings. It doesn't matter what end of the timeline they are on.

Assume an embryo is a child. What is the distinction between an embryo and a kidney cell? Both are genetically complete, in that both contain the knowledge necessary to create a full person. The only distinction is that an embryo can be developed into a person, and a kidney cell can't. But this isn't inherent to the embryo and the kidney cell. It's simply the result of the current state of technology. Namely, we have natural technology (a womb), that can turn an embryo into a baby. Now, postulate a future in which we have man-made technology that can turn a kidney cell into a person (which is clearly possible). Now, you cannot create any distinction between the two, and if you accept that an embryo is a person, so too must you accept that a kidney cell is a person. Since the latter is ridiculous, so to must be the former.

Now, theologically, you can make the distinction that an embryo contains some innate "humanness" that distinguishes it from any other types of cell clusters. If you believe in this (it doesn't have to be religious, by the way, any belief that humans are more than the sum of their parts will do), then you can create an additional distinction to solve the embryo/kidney cell problem. However, science has yet to ascertain the existance of such a "humanness", so while you can believe it all you want, others are free to not believe it, and you cannot say you are right and they are not.

All of the above was a long way of saying: it's dishonest to claim that supporters of stem cell research believe in killing children. They believe in killing embryos, and do not believe embryos are children. Since you cannot prove that they are, all you can do is agree to disagree.

Killing one is one too many.

Oh please. If one baby could be killed to end the hunger of hundreds of children that starve to death every day, would you not do it? If you would not have the stomach to do it yourself, do you not at least agree it should be done? The idea that human life is invioble is ridiculous. Nature does not consider human life invioble, religion does not consider human life invioble, and most people, faced with their own self preservation, do not consider human life invioble. Now, human life is important, to the preservation of the species (something which nature, religion, and people recognize), but its merely one priority to be weighed against many others.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me that this dark-ritual-that-can't-be-undone was killing the younglings.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Anonymous Coward]

If they had actually found a decent actor for Anakin in II and III it would have made the ending a lot better.

Leonardo DiCaprio.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[wrf3]

Now, you cannot create any distinction between the two

Sure I can. Once is a natural process, the other requires technology to achieve.

and if you accept that an embryo is a person, so too must you accept that a kidney cell is a person.

This doesn't follow, since the unaided kidney cell isn't an embryo.

Since the latter is ridiculous, so to must be the former.

If this future technology was used to transform a kidney cell into an embyro, then that embryo should be protected.

If one baby could be killed to end the hunger of hundreds of children that starve to death every day, would you not do it?

I would not do it and I do not agree that it should be done. The end does not justify the means.

The idea that human life is inviolable is ridiculous.

Then I assume you won't mind if those of us who think you're wrong drag you to the disintegration chamber?

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[The One and Only]

He probably thought he would then kill Darth Sideous, and make himself Emperor

That's his plan all along. He tells Padme that they can rule the galaxy together, and when that falls through he tries to recruit Luke for ruling-the-galaxy duty. He just doesn't want to rule the galaxy alone. His main character flaw is his inability to be alone. He was upset enough from losing his mother to commit a minor atrocity, but luckily for him, he can in a way replace her with Padme. He's obsessed with saving Padme, and when he ultimately loses her, only Palpatine is there to be a father figure. And he's loyal, at least until he finds Luke and figures he can off Palpatine and rule the galaxy with his son.

Probably comes from the fact he never had a father. Interesting, eh?

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Saeger]

Sure, because a lump of cells is equivalent to a "youngling" with a fully-formed conscious brain. Not.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[wrf3]

If the lump of cells is an embryo all it needs is time and a non-hostile environment -- the same as you, me, those "younglings" and everyone else.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[sg3000]

> That's his plan all along. He tells Padme that they can rule the
> galaxy together, and when that falls through he tries to recruit
> Luke for ruling-the-galaxy duty. He just doesn't want to rule
> the galaxy alone.

Interesting.

I also find it fascinating that Anakin is never free.

He starts life off literally as a slave on Tatooine. Then he starts his Jedi training, and he's not free there either. Remember in Episode II when Padme asks him if he's even allowed to love? He's still a slave, but now he's a slave to the Jedi order, in a sense.

Then he joins the Sith to save Padme, and he's now a slave to the dark side. he tells Luke in Episode VI that it's too late for him, he must obey his master. Anakin's situation makes one reinterpret Leia's line in Episode IV, about Tarkin holding Vader's leash.

The only time Anakin is truly free is when he kills Sideous. And he dies minutes after that.

I guess it can go beyond that. If the Jedi are "slaves" to the Jedi order, and the Sith are "slaves" to the dark side, and he's a slave his whole life, then Anakin's line in Episode I is correct about his dream where he freed all the slaves.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[The One and Only]

I guess it can go beyond that. If the Jedi are "slaves" to the Jedi order, and the Sith are "slaves" to the dark side, and he's a slave his whole life, then Anakin's line in Episode I is correct about his dream where he freed all the slaves. Except the Wookiees. Please, will somebody think of the Wookiees?

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[sg3000]

>> I guess it can go beyond that. If the Jedi are "slaves" to the Jedi
>> order, and the Sith are "slaves" to the dark side, and he's a
>> slave his whole life, then Anakin's line in Episode I is correct
>> about his dream where he freed all the slaves.

> Except the Wookiees. Please, will somebody think of the
> Wookiees?

Aaah, no one cares about the Wookiees anyway. Why do you think Chewbacca didn't get a medal? ;-)

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[killproc]

Then I assume you won't mind if those of us who think you're wrong drag you to the disintegration chamber?

No, never. That would be wrong! Think of the kidneys!

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[be-fan]

Sure I can. Once is a natural process, the other requires technology to achieve.

what is the distinction? What is a womb other than a technology for turning embroys into babies? There is no reasonable way to distinguish "natural" from "unnatural". What is natural? Something that arises in nature? Well, people arise in nature, and people build houses, so aren't houses natural? Are anthills natural? You can only distinguish the two if you believe that people are somehow fundementally different from any other creature on earth, not in terms of capabilities, but intrinsicly different. You can say, "what God created is natural, but what humans create is not natural". But you can't prove that, so again, we're back to having no provable distinction.

This doesn't follow, since the unaided kidney cell isn't an embryo.

You mean an unaided kidney cell cannot grow into a human? Well, sorry to break it to you, but an unaided embryo cannot grow into a human either.

If this future technology was used to transform a kidney cell into an embyro, then that embryo should be protected.

There is nothing special about an embryo, intrinscally. The reason people want to protect them is because they have the potential to grow into a human being. If they didn't, they'd be just like every other cell in the body. However, the only reason an embryo can turn into baby and a kidney cell cannot is because the technology we use to create babies (wombs), operate on the former and not the latter. If the technology existed to create babies from kidney cells (after all, they are as genetically complete as an embryo), then should kidney cells be protected?

I would not do it and I do not agree that it should be done. The end does not justify the means.

You believe that, but that doesn't make it true. I don't believe either that the ends justifies the means. But like Machiavelli said, certain ends to justify certain means. Any rational analysis suggests that saving 1000 lives is worth taking one. Only if you leave our world and postulate the existence of some higher truth that prevents such a thing, only then can you claim that those children should not be saved.

Then I assume you won't mind if those of us who think you're wrong drag you to the disintegration chamber?

That does not logically follow what I said. I'd protest not because I believe human life is invioble, but I believe in self-preservation. But let me play along with your scenario. If you were dragging me to the disintigration chamber, and I killed you to protect myself, then very few people would fault me for it. Thus, human life is obviously not invioble. As soon as you justify taking life in one way, you cannot claim its inviobility. It becomes just one more priority to be balanced with all the other priorities people have.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[wrf3]

You can only distinguish the two if you believe that people are somehow fundementally different from any other creature on earth, not in terms of capabilities,..
It is in capabilities where we are fundamentally different.

The reason people want to protect them is because they have the potential to grow into a human.
On the contrary, they are humans that have the potential to grow.

...then should kidney cells be protected?
Not any more than sperm or eggs.

I don't believe either that the ends justifies the means. But like Machiavelli said, certain ends to justify certain means.
As written, these are self-refuting statements.

Any rational analysis suggests that saving 1000 lives is worth taking one.
Rational? Using what basis of morality? And does this only apply to those who cannot defend themselves, or will you apply it to everyone?

That does not logically follow what I said.
Sure it does. If you think that killing embryos is justified, by killing you we can save 1000's of them.

I'd protest not because I believe human life is invioble, but I believe in self-preservation.
So would the embroys, if they but had the chance to live. But if you can justify destroying those who cannot defend themselves, I'm sure we can come up with a justification for ignoring your protestations.

It becomes just one more priority to be balanced with all the other priorities people have.
And who are the elite who decide?

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that Obi-Wan should have taken the battle with Anakin a little further. After Anakin got his ass whupped and caught on fire, Obi-Wan should have raped and killed Padme in front of him while laughing the entire time.

That would have been cool.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[be-fan]

It is in capabilities where we are fundamentally different.

Our differences are a matter of degree, not quality. That makes us quantitatively different, not fundementally different.

Not any more than sperm or eggs.

You're missing the point entirely. It's not as if fertilized eggs are any more genetically complete than eggs or sperm or kidney cells. They have a different genetic makeup, but all three have an equally complete set. All three contain all the knowledge to create a human being. The only difference is that right now only fertilized eggs can be turned into people. But that's just a factor of what we use to turn embryos into people (wombs) at this point in time. In a situation where that is no longer true, this distinction will no longer hold.

Let me approach the point this way. Scientists are not killing babies. Embryos are not yet babies, but they could be. So what you're really complaining about is the fact that scientists are not putting the embryos into a place (ie: a womb), where they could turn into babies. If there existed a technology to turn a kidney cell into a baby, using your logic someone could fault scientists for not putting the kidney cell into that machine. That's the sort of innane conclusions you reach when you try to protect something based on what it could become, rather than based on what it actually is.

As written, these are self-refuting statements.

Not self-refuting, rather mutually contridictory, but the point is well taken. I intended to add a "in general" in there. I don't believe that in general the ends justify the means, but rather that particular ends to justify particular means.

Rational? Using what basis of morality? And does this only apply to those who cannot defend themselves, or will you apply it to everyone?

Rationality requires no morality. Morality is a construction of man, that differs from person to person. Rationality is universal.

So would the embroys, if they but had the chance to live.

So would my steak, if it had been given the chance to live. So would the bacteria that you so callously wash off in the sink. Self-preservation is not unique to man. But we kill cows and bacteria all the time, because life is not sacrosenct. We avoid killing people, because that would have negative social ramifications, but we do not consider even human life to be invioble. The fact that human life is vioble is written into our very laws.

But if you can justify destroying those who cannot defend themselves, I'm sure we can come up with a justification for ignoring your protestations.

There is no "themselves" there. The word "self" refers to sentient creatures. Embryos are not sentient. They have no "self".

As for my protestations, you miss the point. You said that I shouldn't mind if you decide to kill me. My point was that I have a good reason to mind (self-preservation), one that has nothing to do with my believing that life is inviolate. The fact that you could come up with justifications really has no bearing on either mine or your original point.

But I'll play along again. Depending on your justifications, you could very well be right. If, after all, I was about to shoot your child, well, most people would consider you quite justified in killing me. We see yet again that human life is not inviolate at all, but rather that its taking is justifiable for a number of reasons.

And who are the elite who decide?

You're dodging my point, which is that life is just a priority among many. Not that it "should be" (I have no interest in "should be"), but that it is whether we like it or not. Who decides where it stands on the list of priorities is really irrelevent to my point.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Bender1012]

I want to thank you both for generating a good discussion. Whether you were trying to or not, you've raised many interesting points that I never thought about before.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Gulthek]

He said that he killed all of them including "the women, the children".

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, you cannot create any distinction between the two, and if you accept that an embryo is a person, so too must you accept that a kidney cell is a person. Since the latter is ridiculous, so to must be the former.

That's just a pure strawman. Of course you can make a distinction, a blindingly obvious one. Until you apply the magic switch, one is going to develop into a person, one is going to stay a kidney cell. After you apply it, both are going to develop into people. It's only because you don't want to see a distinciton that you say there isn't one, even when that distinction is clearly marked by an intentional technological intervention. How much more obvious do you want it do be?

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[evilviper]

Well, people arise in nature, and people build houses, so aren't houses natural?

No. Humans are significantly different from all other animals, in that humans do things not dictated by instinct. Higher brain functions make humans "unnatural".

"what God created is natural, but what humans create is not natural". But you can't prove that, so again, we're back to having no provable distinction.

What humans create is mechanical, what "God" created was complex biological systems. There is a major distinction.

Any rational analysis suggests that saving 1000 lives is worth taking one.

Not true. There are many ways to look at it (that don't really involve morality), that would find destroying one to save many more is not necessarily worthwhile.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF is an embroy. You are an idiot.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Hast]

Actually that part where he defended Palpatine was the only part in his fall that was any good. One rare moment in these last 3 movies where I could actually understand what the characters where supposed to feel and they didn't even say it out loud.

The rest of his fall was sucky though. As the grandparent wrote, it could have been much better without a lot of effort. (Or rather, with any effort.)

Besides you'd think that the most powerful Jedi ever would have a certain resistance to force influencing. All other powerful force users are after all.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[be-fan]

No. Humans are significantly different from all other animals, in that humans do things not dictated by instinct.

So do apes.

Higher brain functions make humans "unnatural".

It's becoming increasingly clear that humans differ not in that we have higher brain functions and other animals don't, but rather that our higher brain functions are more developed than that of other animals. But let me play along anyway. So you're saying that you can categorize creatures by the sort of brain functions they exhibit. So a monkey is higher than a worm, and a human is higher than a monkey. Well, by your logic, an (early) embryo is lower than all three, because unlike even a worm, it has no senses at all.

What humans create is mechanical, what "God" created was complex biological systems. There is a major distinction.

Not if you don't believe that God created everything but humans. Even if God created the universe, and let nature take its course, then humans are still natural. If something arises naturally, then anything it creates must too be natural. Again, anthills are the work of the organized labor of thousands of creatures. Yet, they are natural. So too is a human house natural.

Not true. There are many ways to look at it (that don't really involve morality), that would find destroying one to save many more is not necessarily worthwhile.

Like? All appeals to hold life invioble are necessarily moral in nature. They require an appeal to an unprovable, presumably "higher" truth.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[wrf3]

Our differences are a matter of degree, not quality. That makes us quantitatively different, not fundementally different.

If there were really true, I don't think we would come to such radically different conclusions.

You're missing the point entirely.

That's not surprising, since communication can be extrodinarily hard, especially when the sides are fairly far apart.

Let me try again. The reason that I brought up sperm and eggs is not that they are genetically complete, as the kidney cell is, but that none of these will result in life without some type of trigger event. It is that trigger event, whether natural or technological, that defines the point at which human life begins and is to be protected.

Rationality requires no morality.
I need to think about that. In any case, my point was that morality can be subject to rationality. Is your claim that "some ends justify some means" an axiom in your system, or is it derived from other propositions? I would be interested in the basis of what you hold to be moral. Enlighted self-interest? Survival of the fittest? Love your neighbor as yourself? Etc...

Morality is a construction of man, that differs from person to person.
Well, that's only true for atheists (either philosophcally or practically. For example, a deist is an atheist who hides behind a cloak of "spirituality". But I digress). That's a dicussion for another day.

The fact that human life is vioble is written into our very laws
But only because we have a notion of justice. The taking of human life by law is to punish the guilty -- not to kill the innocent to further our selfish ends.

Embryos are not sentient. They have no "self".

The "trigger" has been pulled and they are on the path to sentience. They should be allowed to travel the natural path that they are on. They have done nothing worthy of death.

You said that I shouldn't mind if you decide to kill me.
Yes, because the consequences of your logic should apply to you as well as others. You claim that it is ok to kill one to (potentially) save many. If that is true, then it should be ok to kill you to save many (the embroys who would develop). Sauce, gooses, and ganders. Unless you want to posit some type of morality that doesn't apply equally to all -- in which case we're back to Orwell's "Animal Farm".

We see yet again that human life is not inviolate at all, but rather that its taking is justifiable for a number of reasons.

All of which involve some degree of guilt. What have embryos done wrong?

You're dodging my point, which is that life is just a priority among many.

I'm not dodging it, I'm attempting to point out the consequences of your position. If life is just one of many priorities, who decides who lives and who dies? A future where human life is not sacrosanct is frightening to those who have no power.

I think that if you continue to use rationality to look at the consequences of your morality, you'll find that it's quite dangerous. Not only to embryos, but to everyone.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Tiggs23]

Then he starts his Jedi training, and he's not free there either. Remember in Episode II when Padme asks him if he's even allowed to love? He's still a slave, but now he's a slave to the Jedi order, in a sense. This reminds me--has anyone else noticed the similarity of the Jedi philosophy to that of the society in the movie "Equilibrium"?

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[dtungsten]

That wasn't evil, it was anger.

"Anger, fear, aggression, the Dark Side are they." -Yoda

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[evilviper]

Well, by your logic, an (early) embryo is lower than all three, because unlike even a worm, it has no senses at all.

I am not the original poster. I'm not trying to wav. the anti-embryo-research flag here...

Even if God created the universe, and let nature take its course, then humans are still natural.

Absolutely ridiculous. The fact that humans had a natural origin does not even remotely imply that everything they now do must somehow be natural.

All appeals to hold life invioble are necessarily moral in nature.

You could look at things like the quantitative differences between the few and the many... You could find that the individual object is better than any of the many others. eg. Would you kill off a few physicists to save many homeless people? Would you kill off a few children to save many 80-year-old people? It's not a question of morality at all.

I could list many many more, but since you insist there are none, I suppose two is good enough.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[stanmann]

What he did was inherently selfish. and inherently human. Killing others to save one's own.. Was he wrong, yes of course, but killing the jedi and the younglings et al to save the love of his life and the spawn of his body, is the way the human instinct works... The Jedi Council worked to subliminate this for a greater good. Sidious used his natural desire to save his lover(wife) and spawn in order to corrupt him and bring him to a point where he would destroy one and very nearly destroy the other.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Wiggin]

"Aaah, no one cares about the Wookiees anyway. Why do you think Chewbacca didn't get a medal? ;-)"

Probably because he didn't want it pinned directly to his skin ;)

-Wiggin

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Thuktun]

That's his plan all along. He tells Padme that they can rule the galaxy together, and when that falls through he tries to recruit Luke for ruling-the-galaxy duty.

That isn't just Anakin, that's apparently part-and-parcel of the Sith master/apprentice setup. The Emperor uses that "rule the galaxy together" bit, too.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[mink]

In that case why does the president allow so many children to be killed day in day out.

He needs to immediately pass legislation forcing a woman to have every egg implanted (not at the same time) and make all those babies she is willing to kill just to have one.

Also they need to outlaw miscarriages and birth control as well as menstruation. After all those are children being destroyed.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[mink]

Last time I watched EPIV (unless it has changed again) the medals were on ribbons.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[mazarin5]

Anakin then kills Sideous (sacrificing himself) instead of allowing Sideous to kill Luke, and completes the fulfillment of the prophesy.

I had wondered since the first movie, if he doesn't restore balance to the force by becoming a Sith Lord. After all, there is nothing but Jedi for such a long time that when they see a Sith, they don't even know what it is. Too much light side for too long, and then a whole lot of dark side for a couple decades sounds balanced to me.

heh

[pocketfullofshells]

I'm just glad they snuck in a Willhelm among all those screams.

Re:heh

[Guano_Jim]

I'm just glad they snuck in a Willhelm among all those screams.

Parent is referring to the Wilhelm, a sound effect that sound artists seem to stick into every film they can as a joke.

From the above linked article:

The Wilhelm has punctuated the death and dismemberment of dozens of characters in some 20 to 25 movies, particularly in those associated with George Lucas. With appearances in some of history's biggest hits, from Star Wars to Raiders of the Lost Ark to Toy Story, clearly this sound gets around.

Listen to the RealAudio of the Wilhelm article.

Re:heh

[jacen_sunstrider]

I hate that sound. No matter how much it is supposed to be a joke, it shocks me when I hear it in a movie that I thought might be above it for once. It distracted me from seeing all the cool parts of that space battle the first time as I fumed (but don't worry avid fans, I caught every tidbit in my later viewings of the film!).

Re:heh

[The Angry Mick]

Me too. I heard it in LOTR: Two Towers during the battle at Helm's Deep (an elf squeals as he falls from the walls) and it nearly killed my appreciation of the whole scene...

It may be funny to the directors to include it as an homage to something (to what, I don't know), but it's too distinctive not to become distracting.

Re:heh

[mink]

Elves being at the battle of Helms Deep killed my apreciation of the whole battle.

hilarious

[vitamine73]

Check out this remake of episode IV:


Grocery Store Wars: The Organic Rebellion

Re:hilarious

[multipartmixed]

Hilarious would be the understatement of the century. Thanks!

Re:hilarious

[JhohannaVH]

Ok, I watched the whole thing, and that was soooooo lame. Maybe cuz I do buy organic, or whatever... but damn. It was corny. But it had it's merits. What they really need to do is show this to the kids as part of health class! :P Or PE! Something. Oh, and the myth about organic being more 'spenive, is false, cuz I actually spend less on organics than anything. Jho

Ah hah!

[EMIce]

I knew it was the millenium falcon! That was so worth the $10.

Re:Ah hah!

[Spodlink05]

I knew it was the millenium falcon! That was so worth the $10.

I know it's a heap o' junk, but surely it's worth more than $10?!

wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

How far away is easter?

not seen yet

[PsiPsiStar]

I haven't seen episode 3 yet. So tell me, has Lucas realized he can't write dialogue and gotten someone better to do it for him? Not surprising that the best line in episode 5 (second in the original), when Leia says "I love you" and Solo says "I know" was not actually in the script. Harrison made it up on the spot. (He seems to do a lot of that, no?)

What really makes Star wars is the spin off industries.

Forget Industrial light and Magic for a moment. Who wouldn't pay a fortune to have Lucas's PR agency hype their movie?

Re:not seen yet

[Anonymous Coward]

No he hasn't. The dialog is still hard as wood and filled with spectacular eye candy. That being said the second half of the movie was fantastic and may have made up for the nonsense that was 1 and 2. The segue into episode 4 was almost perfect and almost makes you wish that Lucas would make an episode 3.5. In summary: go watch it in two weeks when all the weirdos have disipated and catch a matinee on a digital screen.

Re:not seen yet

[IANAAC]

Not surprising that the best line in episode 5 (second in the original), when Leia says "I love you" and Solo says "I know" was not actually in the script. Harrison made it up on the spot. (He seems to do a lot of that, no?)

Certainly better than this outing's

"It's because I love you so much"
"No. I love you more... Pookie"

Well, at least that's what I got out of it.

I mean, has he not been in love since high school?

Re:not seen yet

[be-fan]

No, not really. It was better than the first two (in the last half, anyway), but I've seen better on much cheaper sci-fi movies. But at least during the last half of the movie, Lucas seems to take the hint and not have much in the way of dialogue at all.

Re:not seen yet

[The One and Only]

Lucas might have, but Anakin hasn't, and neither has Padme.

Re:not seen yet

[m50d]

The second half was worse, it was where all the horrible dialogue and wooden acting was. Watch it until the battle bits end, they're the most fun part.

Bush

[Servo]

You forgot about the references to Bush in the Darth Vader dialog.

Re:Bush

[Lord Pillage]

You forgot about the references to Bush in the Darth Vader dialog.

You mean, "If you aren't with me, then you're my enemy!" of course. (right before he and Obi-Wan go at it/also a Bush quotation)

Re:Bush

[skyman8081]

Where's the anti-bush part of: "Where's Padme, is she safe, is she alright?" and "She was alive! I felt it, I saw her. NNOOOOOOO!"

hmm?

Re:Bush

[be-fan]

It's not those lines. It's the "you're either with my, or your my enemy" (from Anakin), and the "only the Sith see things in absolutes" (from Obi Wan).

While I agree with him, I personally couldn't really care less what Lucas thinks, and his references to the situation are as simple and without subtlety as we accuse Bush of being.

Re:Bush

[BigGerman]

so "do or do not.. there are no try" and now "only the Sith see things in absolutes".. Hmmm.

Re:Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

so "do or do not.. there are no try" and now "only the Sith see things in absolutes"

I'd say that "ONLY the Sith see things in abolutes" is pretty absolutist. I think this was a coded confession that Obi Wan is the real Sith Lord, Sidious is his apprentice, and Maul/Tyrranus/Vader were just useful fools.

Re:Bush

[Scrameustache]

so "do or do not.. there are no try" and now "only the Sith see things in absolutes".. Hmmm.

Remeber in ep1 when Yoda looks into Anakin's future, frowns, and declares it "fuzzy" and says he can't see?

He lied.

He saw the awnser to the riddle of the Balance of the Force: From an imbalance of thousands of light-side weilder and only two dark-siders, Anakin will bring balance: Two of each.

Yoda keeps his mouth shut and makes sure he's one the two.

Re:Bush

[glyph42]

That's the best line ever: "Only the Sith see things in absolutes." Hahaha! You should never generalize, Obi Wan. Everybody always generalizes.

Re:Bush

[JasdonLe]

That's hilarious :)

Re:Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

You, sir, are a nerd, but I'm sort of proud of you. :)

Make more money?

[CypherXero]

This is a good way to get people to see the movie again, to try to find the easter eggs (and to also buy/rent the DVD). Way to go, Lucas, you've successfully found another way to make more money.

Additional Easter Eggs

[jounihat]

There's also two Easter eggs not mentioned in the article, because they're very difficult to find. In the first you can see someone in the background mumbling something, which is clearly a decent part of a dialogue. In the second, for one frame, you can see Hayden Christensen actually acting (it's uncertain, however, is it the real Hayden Christensen or just a Hayden Christensen 3D-model).

Re:Additional Easter Eggs

[36 6_42]

I've always been impressed with the actors who have the one frame parts. Its quite something how much can be conveyed in 1/30th of a second.

Re:Additional Easter Eggs

[pg110404]

Easter egg 1 - background mumbling - during normal shooting, background actors are usually asked to pretend like they are talking but not actually make any noise. This allows the boom mic to pick up the main actor's voice more clearly without the distraction of somebody in the background. The background dialogue you hear in this case is more than likely the ad-libbing of the foley sound stage actors.

Easter egg 2 - Hayden's acting - Given 2 hours + of movie time, it's entirely possible he appears to be able to act decently for that one frame through pure random coincidence. A similar concept of a stopped 'analog' watch is right accurate a day.

I think George Lucas got lucky with these two points.

Re:Additional Easter Eggs

[jounihat]

I think George Lucas got lucky with these two points.

You mean... they weren't intentional?! Damn! I thought I'd get +5 Informative.

Re:Additional Easter Eggs

[pg110404]

You mean... they weren't intentional?!

Maybe they were. It's hard to tell. Given that the rest was pretty much crap, maybe he finally did something right.

I'd say it +5 funny more than +5 informative. It can still be tragically true and be funny.

Re:Additional Easter Eggs

[jounihat]

Well, George Lucas has done some right things before, too. Like letting someone else write and direct the sequels to New Hope.

Anyway, my last post got only +1, which strengthens the universal truth that prequels are always better.

Re:Additional Easter Eggs

[doormat]

A similar concept of a stopped 'analog' watch is right accurate a day.

A broken analog watch is correct twice per 24-hour period (assuming a 12-hour clock).

Re:Additional Easter Eggs

[admactanium]

I've always been impressed with the actors who have the one frame parts. Its quite something how much can be conveyed in 1/30th of a second.

or even 1/24th of a second.

Re:Additional Easter Eggs

[pg110404]

Actually, I believe Gary Kurtz helped George Lucas with 'new hope' and 'empire strikes back' which were arguably the best two of the whole lot of them.

He quit when George Lucas insisted on changing the plot for 'return of the jedi' by making darth vader turn away from the dark side at the very end in a single act of sacrifice - as if that one act alone was enough to redeem him.

The original story called for darth vader to be killed in episode 6.

Re:Additional Easter Eggs

[croddy]

accurate... but never anything even approaching precise.

Re:Additional Easter Eggs

[pg110404]

Actually revision one of my post was:

watch is right twice a day.

and revision two was supposed to be:

watch is accurate twice a day.

I screwed up and replaced the wrong word. I replaced the word 'twice' for 'accurate' when the word that should have been replaced was 'right'.

Every single analog watch I've ever seen is based on 12 hours and since there are two 12 hour periods in the standard 24 hour day, then the statement that a stopped watch (which need not be broken, btw, simply not wound) is accurate twice a day is a fair statement. The duration of the accuracy can be for an infinitesimal amount of time, but it is still accurate.

Thanks for pointing that out, it was a problem with my editing I only caught after I had posted it.

Re:Additional Easter Eggs

[Anonymous Coward]

stopped watch (which need not be broken, btw, simply not wound)

And of course many broken watches are not right twice a day, depending on the manner in which they are broken. It does have to have stopped.

Re:Additional Easter Eggs

[wondafucka]

Another easter egg not mentioned in the article: If you pay close attention from 0:00:00 until 2:40:00 you will notice that the plot makes no sense!

Re:Additional Easter Eggs

[serutan]

Dude, you're already at 5 but if I had the power you'd be at 11 on this one. Very Funny!

Re:Additional Easter Eggs

[Anonymous Coward]

Many analog watches have more than just an hour and minute hand. Mine has a day of the month and a day of the week counter. So at best, when it stops it'll be right approximately four times a year (I figure any combination of day of the month and day of the week will happen about twice in a year. On that day, it will be right twice as it has no AM/PM indicator [though it does track this internally ]). It will be right less if it happens to stop on the 31st though.

Whew. That was one heck of a tangent.

Who cares, the movie sucked anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, I would never have thought it possible, but I was sitting in a cinema, watching Star Wars and was bored as I hadn't been bored in a long time. I even left after about half the movie as I just couldn't stand it anymore.

A tiny Millennium Falcon may be a nice idea, but it certainly doesn't save this movie.

Re:Who cares, the movie sucked anyway

[Dobeln]

worse than boring - it was pure frigging suffering to watch all that stilted dialogue, disjointed script... etc. etc. Nice CGI though...

What does Regular Old Telephone Service

[Anonymous Coward]

have to do with this?

Re:What does Regular Old Telephone Service

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are thinking of POTS. I see ROTS and think ROTT, return of the triad.

Re:What does Regular Old Telephone Service

[koniosis]

I think of ROTK (Return of the King) I wonder what the psychiatrists would make of us three then eh?

Re:What does Regular Old Telephone Service

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what the psychiatrists would make of us three then eh?

A steady source of income.

Re:What does Regular Old Telephone Service

[sof_boy]

Clearly, he is referring to ROUS, the Rodents of Unusual Size that live in the Fire Swamp.

Re:What does Regular Old Telephone Service

[LocoMan]

Wouldn't that be Rise of the Triad (unless it's something different you're talking about)... which BTW always makes me remember DOTT or Day of the Tentacle.. :)

Re:What does Regular Old Telephone Service

[brentcastle]

Which is plain old... for those who need to know.

Re:What does Regular Old Telephone Service

[FosterKanig]

OK, that's funny!

Sith Easter Eggs

[Anonymous Coward]

Milk chocolate or darth chocolate?

Re:Sith Easter Eggs

[Anonymous Coward]

> Milk chocolate or darth chocolate?

"Leave us out of it!"
- an M&M

Good or whack?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me about Revenge of the Sith Easter Eggs. Is it good or is it whack?

Re:Good or whack?

[Lord Pillage]

Ignore all the /.ers who think their opinion is the ultimate one and go see it for yourself. In all honestly I loved it, and plan on seeing it a third time. It's full of action and it is engrossingly entertaining. Of course it isn't flawless and whoever expects it to be shouldn't see it because they'd just disappoint themselves. Just go in with an open mind to see a great film and you'll thoroughly enjoy it. Kudos Lucas.

Re:Good or whack?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not really a great Star Wars movie, but it is a great movie. IMHO, all that keeps it from the greatness of the origional trilogy is the nostalgia.

Re:Good or whack?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to chocolate.

Re:Good or whack?

[be-fan]

I recommend seeing it, but let's be objective about this. The acting *was* horrible, and the dialog *was* bad. Every professional review of the movie I've seen said as much. Whether you like the movie really depends on your tolerence for bad acting and dialog. Or rather, how bad it has to get before you're jarred out of the story world and realize you're watching a movie.

Re:news?

[Seumas]

I don't mind it so much. StarWars is incredibly overrated and I wouldn't waste my three hours and ten bucks to see it (I'm not even sure I'd waste the time to watch it on cable in a couple years) - so seeing all this coverage sort of makes it moot. It's like SinCity. I probably won't bother to ever watch that, either - but I don't need to because there's been so much coverage of it that I've more or less already "watched" it.

Pedant time

[Anonymous Coward]

With films, each instant represents 1/24th of a second, not 1/30.

Re:Pedant time

[Leroy_Brown242]

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=asinine

Homage to ET?

[bbzzdd]

**Minor Spoiler**

Did anyone else feel the scene where Yoda leaves Kashyyyk was entirely reminiscent of the last scene in ET? Even Yoda's little pod looked a lot like ET's ship to me. I could even swear I heard the ET theme playing in the background.

Re:Homage to ET?

[mrchaotica]

There were a bunch of references like that. Some of the targeting screens on -- I forget which ship; the one that Anakin crashed into Coruscant, maybe -- looked almost exactly like Klingon ones from Star Trek, for example.

Re:Homage to ET?

[Kn0xy]

I do not know about the Theme, but I also felt that was in homage to ET when I first saw it.

Re:Homage to ET?

[Cyno01]

Hmm, at that part i turned to my buddy and was like, "so wait, yodas superman?".

Re:Homage to ET?

[ctishman]

Yep, I saw it too. I leaned over to my father and said "E.T. homage". He stopped snoring, turned his head to the left and nodded off again.

Re:Homage to ET?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I was fully expecting the rainbow to appear when his ship lifted off.

On the bright side

[Jesus IS the Devil]

Anything to take your mind off the awful acting can't be a bad thing...

Re:On the bright side

[be-fan]

So true! That was exactly my reaction to Episode III. Now, it's not like I expect great acting in a Sci-Fi movie, but I expect passable acting. I expect good enough acting that I'm not continuously drawn out of the action by bad it is (or how cringe-worthy the dialogue is).

I watch Sci Fi channel, for god's sake, so I'm not a movie snob by any means. The acting in those movies is bad, but they are also filmed on $10. In a $200m major blockbuster with well-known actors, I expect the acting and dialog to at least keep up with something like Stargate, a series filmed for a fraction of a fraction of that cost.

Re:On the bright side

[Solarbeat]

Sadly, it's not the acting, it's the writing. Clearly the movie has some experienced actors who've done very well in other roles... the only thing that can explain godawful scenes like the Padme/Anakin balcony scene is horrednous writing.

Re:On the bright side

[Snaller]

Remember to watch "Serenity" later this yeah, there you'll have great acting from a cast of unknowns on a small budget.

Re:On the bright side

[Paul Slocum]

Although to be fair, it's tough to act well when your lines are completely retarded. ;o)

Re:On the bright side

[Anonymous Coward]

RotS was done for $115million

Re:On the bright side

[FriendOfBagu]

Now, it's not like I expect great acting in a Sci-Fi movie, but I expect passable acting.

Um... Hadn't you seen the previous 2 movies?

Re:On the bright side

[brwski]

be-fan writes: In a $200m major blockbuster with well-known actors, I expect the acting and dialog to at least keep up with something like Stargate, a series filmed for a fraction of a fraction of that cost.

Exactly. Why not spend the extra $50,000 - $100,000 for a decent screenwriter? That must cost less than the on-set food costs.

brwski

Re:On the bright side

[MyDixieWrecked]

Episode III had b-movie acting with an a-movie budget.

Re:On the bright side

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's unfair to blame the actors in Ep III. Sure, maybe some of the lines could have been rescued a bit better, but that's expecting a lot. Seriously...

Anakin: You're beautiful.
Padme: I'm beautiful because I'm in love.
Anakin: No, you're beautiful because I'm in love.

I give them major props for being able to say that and maintain a straight face.

Re:On the bright side

[fm6]

Nobody here will like that movie. Joss Whedon stubornly insists that there are no sounds in space. Heresy!

Re:On the bright side

[thumperward]

Errr, no. Serenity might very well be the best thing ever created, but it's not on a small budget. Part of the reason Firefly was axed was that it was extremely un-cheap to produce.

- Chris

Re:On the bright side

[Snaller]

Errr, no. Serenity might very well be the best thing ever created, but it's not on a small budget.

According to the studio it is.
Part of the reason Firefly was axed was that it was extremely un-cheap to produce.


Not true, it wasn't particularly expensive.

Re:On the bright side

[mink]

Cast of unknowns?
Adam Baldwin and Ron Glass are hardly what I would call unknown. Strangly Summer started in Angel, Sean started in Party of Five (had earlyer film roles), Jewel startid doing films and tv in the early 90's and has a good amount of stuff in her credits, Morena did a few films before Firefly, Alan has done a few movies before firefly starting in the late 90's, Gina has been active in TV actin since the early90's and films since the mid 90's, Nathan has been doing filmand tv since the early/mid 90's.

I notice one thing about most of the less well known cast, most have had some role in another series like Angel or Buffy.

Re:On the bright side

[Snaller]

Cast of unknowns?

Yep, I go out and ask 100 random strangers on the street, a lot of the time i bit 100 of them haven't heard of either.

That may well change after it opens.

Re:On the bright side

[mink]

All I can suggest is to improve the quality of random strangers around you. ;-)

Re:On the bright side

[Snaller]

Can't say that I really disagree, but I am unsure as to the way to proceed - do you have any suggestions? :)

YT-1300 vs Millenium Falcon

[janestarz]

As I was discussing with a friend on my regular D&D night, the difference between a YT-1300 Corellian freighter and the Millenium Falcon, is that the MF is slightly...modified, shall we say? It's a YT-1300++, so to speak
I did not know for instance, that the original YT-1300s have seperate jets while the MF has a big semi-ring of motor power block jet thingies.
(Girl going tech/mech here, beware.)

Ah well, Lando did some last minute remodifications when visiting the Second Death Star and scraped the hull a bit, incidentally losing the communications array too.

What do you mean, -3 off-topic? I'm a girl geek, what do I know of topics anyway!

Re:YT-1300 vs Millenium Falcon

[Anonymous Coward]

"on my regular D&D night"

Oh...my...lord.

Re:YT-1300 vs Millenium Falcon

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oh...my...lord" what?!

I'd rather meet a D&D playing, Star Wars watching and Linux using girl than your run-of-the-mill air-headed "let's go to the mall and shop to kill time" bimbo.

Re:YT-1300 vs Millenium Falcon

[starphish]

Can someone PLEASE mod parent as funny!

Re:YT-1300 vs Millenium Falcon

[be-fan]

You know, the whole D&D playing Star Wars watching thign doesn't imply intelligence any more than the "let's go to the mall and shop to kill time" thing. Indeed, it implies stupidity, just about different things.

Re:YT-1300 vs Millenium Falcon

[be-fan]

FYI: I'm not trying to single out D&D players here. I play Halo for kicks. And yes, Halo is a stupid game, it wastes time that I could be using for something productive. But I'm not going to pretend that playing Halo somehow makes me smarter than somebody who chooses to waste time in a different way.

Re:YT-1300 vs Millenium Falcon

[rokzy]

you say "girl" twice for no reason. I don't buy it. either you're a guy with big tits, or a girl with small tits.

Re:YT-1300 vs Millenium Falcon

[Archangel_Azazel]

Personally I think that paper & dice games such as D&D are a lot less of a 'waste of time' than regular video games. With vid games you just go in a linear path to a known end. D&D allows so many options that no two games are alike. Also, D&D allows you to ACT through your character, not just walk him/her around and blow shit up. (well, most of the time anyway...)

My 2c
A.A

Re:YT-1300 vs Millenium Falcon

[01000011011101000111]

Not to mention the potential career you have as an accountant after memorising all the stats, rules and tables... (disclaimer: Die hard D20/gurps fan here... jic someone missed the joke ;) )

Re:YT-1300 vs Millenium Falcon

[Anonymous Coward]

What's smartness got to do with it? Other things being equal, would you rather meet a girl who wants to play Halo with you or a girl who wants you to go to the mall and shop with her?

Re:YT-1300 vs Millenium Falcon

[be-fan]

It's not the "wanting to meet" part that I took exception with, but the "bimbo" part. The implication was that if you waste your time by shopping at the mall, rather than waste your time by playing a board game, you're somehow a bimbo (read: dumb).

Re:YT-1300 vs Millenium Falcon

[be-fan]

They're both an equally big waste of time. At the end, you haven't really *done* anything. You haven't created anything, or learned anything, or enriched yourself, or gained anything at all. Maybe it makes you feel good, but then again, so does mastrubation. The end result is the same --- you're exactly the same person afterwards that you were before.

Now, I'm not saying that you always have to be productive and do things to improve yourself. That would be silly. People need to do pointless things to amuse themselves. But judging your pointless amusement as somehow more worthy than someone elses is just stupid.

Re:YT-1300 vs Millenium Falcon

[eobanb]

Will you marry me?

Re:YT-1300 vs Millenium Falcon

[L7_]

its more of the fact that you actually have to read and learn new vocabulary rather than just stare at pretty 3d generated frames.

the term 'melee' (pronounced may-lay! not MEE-LEE as i found out in history class) i first learned from the 2nd Ed. AD&D books

Re:YT-1300 vs Millenium Falcon

[Nokey]

Wrong on both counts bub, she's a big girl with big tits (I should know, with her being my S.O.).

Re:YT-1300 vs Millenium Falcon

[janestarz]

I'm a girl.
I read /.
I know and like Star Wars.
I know and like and play D&D.
And thanks to someone else's comments my boob size is now being discussed on the /. comment thread.

Boy, you're easily swayed, aren't you?

PS: Sorry, no, I'm with NoKey who teaches me linux (gotta love a man who teaches you linux!).

PPS: sorry for off-topic.

Re:YT-1300 vs Millenium Falcon

[be-fan]

If reading a D&D manual teachs you new vocabulary, then you obviously don't read enough. Shit, I read my cereal box in the mornings too, it doesn't make it anything more than a silly way to kill time.

Re:YT-1300 vs Millenium Falcon

[Anonymous Coward]

Nokey is in pretend land again, he needs his meds upped, he's talking to his S.O. as if he's female.

Re:YT-1300 vs Millenium Falcon

[Anonymous Coward]

Relationships often don't work when two people don't have anything in common. But, I have also noticed that they don't work when two people have too much in common. But, as always, YWWV.

Re:YT-1300 vs Millenium Falcon

[istartedi]

If you really want to cut out all the games and foreplay, why not just give her half your money now?

Re:YT-1300 vs Millenium Falcon

[Duhavid]

Half? Shouldnt it be 130%?

Re:YT-1300 vs Millenium Falcon

[m50d]

Don't forget the guns. They're the side defences off a star destroyer, and very illegal for civilians.

Re:YT-1300 vs Millenium Falcon

[Vegeta99]

Are you calling her FAT?!

Re:YT-1300 vs Millenium Falcon

[Archangel_Azazel]

Actually, I always learn something. Whether it's improving my strategy or critical thinking skills or simply exploring a concept that was brought up during the session, I'd say that I *have* 'enriched myself'. As for judging "my amusement" as more worthy, nope... just stating my 2 cents worth of opinion.

YMMV
A.A

Re:YT-1300 vs Millenium Falcon

[Archangel_Azazel]

It seems to me that you simply have a problem with D&D and/or Role playing games in general. It happens, but I think you're putting a bit more into this than is really necessary. The manuals go into a little bit of history, a little bit of mythology, and a little bit of fantasy... If you're not usually reading that type of material then chances are fairly good that you're going to learn something that you didn't know before. ...on an unrelated note, when the hell did /. start checking for scripts with *EVERY* post... even if you're logged in?? /me shrugs

A.A

Re:YT-1300 vs Millenium Falcon

[Scooter]

Yeah - Solo claims that he "made a lot of special modifications myself"

Liar - this is what really happened:-

Xzbit "So this is your ride? What a piece of Junk!"

Han "Yeah - she may not look like much.."

Xzbit "Damm man, you got that right. So.. what IS it?"

Han "It's a Corellian YT-1300 light freighter"

Xzbit "You mean it USED to be! Look at this paint job - is that paint or dandruff ?"

Off to 'Western Spiral Arm Customs!' ....Later, down at the dockyard..

Xzbit "Well, Han Western Spiral have done an amazing job on your YT, and here's ma droid Q to take you round the outside"

Q "When we first got your YT, Han it was so badly beat up, we didn't think it would fly at all.

Now we know you do a bit of smuggling so first we hit you with these Quad turbo laser cannons..

And that's not all: for a really powerful punch, we also added you very own Arakyd Concussion missile tubes!"

Han "No waaay - get outa town - you gave me my own missile launcher?!"

Q "We sure did, right there on your YT. Now, those weapons are great for when you're out on the
sublight highway, but what if some low lifes try and steal your ride from the docking bay? Well check this out: Taim & Bak hooked you up with this neat ventral Auto Blaster. It drops down and
takes out the bad guys."

Han "That is sooo neat"

Q "In fact, we couldn't let this one go without giving you the ultimate smuggler's package, so we
hit you with the Seinar Fleet systems Active Sensor Pulse Generator, a Torplex Fore Deflector
Shield generator, and Carbanti hooked you up with this 29L Electro-Magnetic Countermeasures
package. Not only that but here you got your Nordoxicon Anti-concussion Field generator, a
KaproCorp Acceleration compensator, for those tight turns, a Torplex Tandem Flight Computer with
the Microaxial HyD Modular Navicomputer with optional crop duster program. And round the back we got you a Novaldex Stasis-type Shield generator on the port side, with a Kuat drive-yards shield generator on the starboard side, and an Ion Flux Stabilser with Alluvial damper, and chrome spinners. We also did some boring shit to the engines but we don't talk about that on the show.."

Han "I can't believe what you guys did to my YT! It's the fastest hunk-a-junk in the galaxy
now!"

Xzbit "And that ain't all - check out your interior. Mike tell him what you did.."

Mike "When we got your ship in to the shop Han, you didn't *even* have a stereo, so we hooked you
up with the biggest satellite dish we could find, and a state of the art holographic display
right here in your lounge. And if there's nothing on the TV, it even plays chess!"

Xzbit "Now I know you're wondering where you actually store the stuff you're smuggling - Mike
show Han our special modification"

Mike (lifts floor panel) "Check out your very own smuggling copmpartments!"

Han "Oh. My. God. That is soooo awesome!"

Mike "And if you ever find that you need to smuggle yourself in these, we installed 10 inch
monitors and Holo player right here in the compartment lids, so you can watch movies whilst
hiding out!"

Xzbit "and finally Han, what's a ship these days without strobe lights? Now we want you to stand
out on the approach apron down at Mos Eisley so we hit you with the latest Gelieg 20m-cp
Strobe/C-beams. These puppies will light up the inside of an asteroid!"

Han "This is unbelievable - wait til Chewie sees this!"

Xzbit "Han - you officially bin pimped!"

Re:YT-1300 vs Millenium Falcon

[Buran]

Hi, fellow female geek. :)

Pics load for shit.

[Associate]

I tried it in FF and IE.
I didn't like it that much anyway.

This really does belong on /.

[Lennavan]

Wow, news about easter eggs in Star Wars? This really is news for nerds.

/me wonders why he read the article anyways

/me wonders why he is writing "/me"

/me has to log off immedi

Re:This really does belong on /.

[zoloto]

you read the article...
you must be new here. /Quit

Re:This really does belong on /.

[Lennavan]

I pondered saying "/meesa" but I would have had to kill myse *croaking noises*

I don't know how this one didn't make the cut

[pteaxwa]

Silent film star wars

Re:I don't know how this one didn't make the cut

[Anonymous Coward]

that link reminds me of this little tidbit....

darth vader - standing up for the first time

I can't be the only one who was picturing this during vader's "frankenstein" scene...

Yes, but don't expect much

[wantedman]

George Lucas made two choices for this movie...

1. Everyone loves the battle scenes, so it's 90% battle scenes. Barely a few lines of dialog are spoken before someone else is killed or fighting for their lives. And many of them are better than anything in Eposide I & II.

2. All the acting between Anakin and Padme, Padme is the only one talking while Anakin does what he does best. Pouts.

The acting sucks, the plot is thin and unconvincing, but the adrenaline rush is well worth the ticket price.

Another Easter Egg I found

[Council]

If you hit up-down-up-left-A-B-B-A when you see the Lucasfilm logo, you see an extra splashscreen.

And also it changes directors to Spielberg.

Re:Another Easter Egg I found

[Paralizer]

Don't you mean up-up-down-down-left-right-left-right-B-A-start?

Re:Another Easter Egg I found

[Analog Squirrel]

Does it involve the song "Dancing Queen"?

Re:Another Easter Egg I found

[RollingThunder]

No, that just gives you infinite clones.

Re:Another Easter Egg I found

[Lord Pillage]

I think he meant, B-A-B-A-up-down-B-A-left-right-B-A-start. Figure out where that one is from.

Re:Another Easter Egg I found

[dokkeri]

No... I think that just adds Jar-Jar to each scene.

Re:Another Easter Egg I found

[multipartmixed]

Nine lives for your favourite turtle!

Now, if only I could remember the power up sequence for the arcade version of Bubble Bobble..

Re:Another Easter Egg I found

[nacturation]

Now, if only I could remember the power up sequence for the arcade version of Bubble Bobble..

LEFT, JUMP, LEFT, START, LEFT, FIRE, LEFT, START

"Power Up!"

Re:Another Easter Egg I found

[multipartmixed]

Thanks!!!

Interesting assumptions

[Anonymous Coward]

The article assumes two things:

1. You've already seen the movie. Probably more than once.
2. You're going to see it again. Several times.

tarzan vine cry

[spacepimp]

did anyone else get offended when chewbacca swinging on a a vine on the the back of a battle wheel type ship did a tarzan yell. this cheese is my biggest complaint about the film by far.

Re:tarzan vine cry

[0racle]

You mean like he did in Return of the Jedi?

Re:tarzan vine cry

[Anonymous Coward]

In Return of the Jedi, Chewbacca also makes the Tarzan yell when swinging on to an AT-ST during their fight on Endor. My guess is that he was trying to make it seem like this is normal for Wookies to do this when swinging, as opposed to being simply a gratuitous Tarzan reference. Realize that in Episode III, it was more than just Chewbacca doing it.

Re:tarzan vine cry

[Toad McFrog Esq.]

Offended? No. Saddened? Yes. Check out this (urbandictionary.com) for more information about this strange phenomenon.

Re:tarzan vine cry

[fa098h23fra]

Chewy made the same noise when swinging onto an AT-ST in Return of the Jedi. Lucas is clearly paying homage to his favourite person ever, himself.

Re:tarzan vine cry

[kayen_telva]

my jaw dropped at its utter stupidity. this film is baaaaad. i'll probably watch it again in a few weeks though :o

Re:tarzan vine cry

[Anonymous Coward]

the wookies yelped the same way in the original trilogy too. How long have you been waiting to complain? Sounds like this is the first SW you seen and you are an idiot. Yes, this is a troll/flamebait, now fuck off.

Re:tarzan vine cry

[mbrewthx]

No, he did the same thing in the Return of The Jedi.

Re:tarzan vine cry

[PixelScuba]

NOOOooooOoooo!

Re:tarzan vine cry

[spacepimp]

I only recall seeing one wookie, in the original series. That one was named Chewbacca. I don't recall having noticed, him doing a tarzan cry. Had i noted it i would have thought it silly then too, even at that younger age. If there were more wookies in the original trilogy then i should watch them again. Now as for my original statement it still struck me as cheese. I didn't wait to long to say it as i have only recently seen the movie asshole. How excited were you to make a smarmy half assed irrelevant remark about a movie thats still in theaters. in kind stfu you worthless pigfucker.. Yes thats a hunter s thompson reference in case you missed. as for the anonymous coward part: get in the ring little man

There's a good easter egg in The Phantom Menace...

[rollerbob]

... in fact it's one of TPM's few redeeming features.

A dusty EVA pod from 2001: A Space Odyssey can be seen in amongst the junk in Watto's junkyard. Must have been the one that cut Frank Poole's air supply, eventually ending up in a galaxy far, far away.

Mod this offtopic troll down

[Anonymous Coward]

I sense much hate in you.

Injokes and references

[dancingmad]

All these little in-jokes to the original trilogy really ruins the new trilogy for me. The relationships are incestous (not Luke/Leia tounge kiss incest): it seems like the same dozen or so people are doing everything in the galaxy: there is, for example, no reason for C3P0 to be in the new trilogy. Getting his memory erased at the end of Sith was a ridiculously contrived plot point. Ditto Jango/Boba Fett in the new trilogy.

The Falcon cameo is far less jarring (indeed, barely noticeable), but it has the same feeling; a feeling of forced, contrived little winks to old fans.

Re:Injokes and references

[Anonymous Coward]

no reason for C3P0 to be in the new trilogy

One point that Lucas has always been consistent on is that R2-D2 and C-3PO were the only characters that would appear in all 6/9/12 movies.

Re:Injokes and references

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you lighten up and have some fun? Remember fun? It's what movies are about. Light-hearted fun. If you took Star Wars to be anything else, well - it's your own fault for being disappointed.

Re:Injokes and references

[Anonymous Coward]

Who wiped Owen Lars' memory, or was he just pretending not to recognize C3PO when he bought him from the Jawa?

Re:Injokes and references

[binary paladin]

Come on. In Ep IV you see other droids hopping around on the Blockade Runner that looks just like C3PO. There is a droid in EP I that looks the same that comes to serve Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon. "I want to know why he didn't recognize THAT particular silver Honda Civic when he'd driven just five years before."

I'm not saying the movie didn't have its issues. I'm not saying there weren't some plot problems, but let's not nitpick shit that isn't even a problem.

And while I'm at it... I'M NOT A FUCKING ROBOT! FUCK THESE STUPID THINGS! (Bastards.) Don't you think it's bad when the "solution" is more annoying than the problem?

Re:Injokes and references

[DavidTC]

Huh? Why would Lars recognize a droid he spent two days with 25 years earlier?

And wasn't CP3O a different color at the time?

And if he somehow recognized him, why would he say 'this might be your father's droid' to Luke, when he clearly doesn't want to talk about Anakin at all to Luke.

Whether or not he knew the real story, or believed Anakin died when 'Vader' purged all the Jedi, we don't know. But 'Luke's father' was clearly not a topic in Lars' house, except the safe 'He was a fighter pilot in the Clone Wars'. They didn't even tell him he was a Jedi.

Re:Injokes and references

[AndroidCat]

Umm, Anakin left C3PO behind while he went off to become a Jedi. C3PO must have been on the Lars farm for as long as dead-mom-skywalker. (Minor issue of who owned C3PO since Anakin was a slave when he built it, but Watto might have made a two-for-one deal.)

Re:Injokes and references

[Anonymous Coward]

Which doesn't change the fact that there's no reason for it.

Re:Injokes and references

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that 3CPO was built from a kit, this explains how a six years old could put him together and why there's others droids around that look the same. A very smart little kid could conceivably do that if the instruction manual is good enough.

Relief

[rivid]

Relief! I knew I saw it! And I only had to see it once. :-)

Another overlooked easter egg....

[jdgeorge]

If you look carfully during the "touching scene" between Anakin and Padme, you'll see the wet paper bag that Hayden Christensen was unable to act his way out of.

Re:Another overlooked easter egg....

[be-fan]

I dunno. I don't think he can't act. Have you seen him in "Stattered Glass"? It wasn't great acting, but I thought it was decent. Although, he was playing a pouty, immature character, so maybe he's just good at that...

Re:Another overlooked easter egg....

[MixmastaKooz]

Actually, the easter egg was in his pants...no wait, he was just glad to see her...

ok, I need to have another drink to get that out of my mind....

NOOOOOOOOO!

[Anonymous Coward]

To evoke any pathos from his character's downfall, Hayden Christiansen would need more than his lump-of-wet-cement emotional range.

Whaddya expect from Manakin Skywalker, anyway?

How did that get modded up?

[Anonymous Coward]

Works fine, in all browsers I've tried. How was that insightful?

Re:How did that get modded up?

[Associate]

FuckifIknow. I just couldn't get the damned thing to work right. And nobody here verifies anything anyone else posts.

idiot

[Karma Sucks]

Wasn't it James Earl Jones who screamed the NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO? What did Hayden Christiantiansensen have to do with that.

Re:idiot

[anethema]

Nothing to do with acting there. Thats script and directorial, He tells you to yell noooo you do it! :D

Just a coincidence

[sg3000]

> You forgot about the references to Bush in the Darth Vader
> dialog.

The dialog is superficial. Calls for dramatic absolutes are common when dictators are trying to gain power, as well as anyone with extreme viewpoints. It helps them manage the cognitive dissonance.

Actually all the Star Wars movies are describing, among other things, how Democracy can fall to fascism.

In summary, Palpatine starts a fake war[1] (where he controlled both sides[2]) in order to get elected and stay in office[3] by appealing to people's fear and rallying nationalism [4]. He convinces the Senate to vote Emergency Powers to him [5] in order to consolidate more power under himself. He finally declares the end of the Republic [6] in order to bring "peace" to the galaxy.

The movies are not intended to directly catalog Bush or his policies. The original plot was written in the 1970s, and it was inspired by a number of events in history, including Hitler's rise to power and the Vietnam War. The way we humans move from democracy to fascism happens in roughly the same way each time.

It just so happens that it can be argued that Bush has been following the same pattern as any drive towards fascism. Thus, any parallels to the current state of the U.S. is purely coincidental.

-----

[1] Whoops! No weapons of mass destruction found. Our bad.

[2] Didn't we used to fund and support Saddam Hussein?

[3] Tom Ridge finally admits that the Department of Homeland Security twice questionably raised the terror alert status in order to prop up Bush's poll ratings during the election.

[4] Freedom fries, anyone?

[5] Secret sneak and peek searches via the PATRIOT Act, anyone?

[6] "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier," Bush said, pausing and then joking, "just so long as I'm the dictator."

Re:Just a coincidence

[pg110404]

Mod parent +10 insightful!

Only one point I'd like to add though, is that unlike hitler and other fascists in history, I do believe Bush is not so much after the allure and power in and of itself, but rather by a dubious sense of 'higher purpose' by his beliefs and his insistance that everyone share them. From his point of view it's his 'duty' to bring democracy and stability to the world and to persuade other like minded people to help him push it through, essentially by any means necessary. He's on some kind of crusade, and while in the end the effects are pretty much the same, the motives are somewhat different.

Re:Just a coincidence

[be-fan]

Well, that's a very well research post, but it kind of missed the point. While the plot might have existed for a long time, the dialogue surely didn't. There is no mistaking "you're either with me or you're my enemy". When I heard the first two words, I anticipated the rest of the line. As for "only the Sith see things in absolutes", that too was an obvious jab, for the simple reason that its so out of place. It's not like the Jedi *don't* see things in absolutes, nor do they seem to have a problem with absolutes of their own.

Re:Just a coincidence

[christopherfinke]

No, mod parent -10 Troll. In the linked article, Tom Ridge doesn't admit that they raised the terror alert level to boost Bush's ratings; he only said that he disagreed several times when the level was raised - nothing in the entire article about Bush's poll ratings. The grandparent poster is grasping at straws to support his skewed world view.

Re:Just a coincidence

[bananasfalklands]

I wish that I never went and seen the film. Rubbish and if you try and spot the bit parts you are so wasted.

As to vietnam - If you read Robert Strange McNamara - he sort of blames Dwight D. Eisenhower for being rather vague on what the situation was/or the continuing policy was to be.

How are children - born after vietnam supposed to get this fact that its not about Bush?

It's before my time, im also european

Re:Just a coincidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you honestly believe he had these lousy plots drawn up in 1975 and has been sitting on them ever since?

Heh.

Re:Just a coincidence

[gold23]

In situations like this, I always recall Tolkien's comments about allegory:

"... I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presences. I much prefer history, true or feigned. ... I think many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides to the freedom of the reader, and the other in the proposed domination of the author."

I agree with Tolkien, and prefer to make my own connections.

Re:Just a coincidence

[Snaller]

Be carefull with such talk Mr. Jedi or you may be hunted down by those loyal to the senator!

Re:Just a coincidence

[Artifakt]

"unlike hitler and other fascists in history"

We really can't tell how much anyone wants power in and of itself, and how much they have goals that "justify" their quest for power. I'm sure Hitler thought there were good things comeing that made a few sacrefices necessary. We can't really tell by racial doctrines either, unless you include racial superiority arguements without always requiring megadeaths to accompany them. It's worth remembering that the Italians under Mussolini were practically the epitomy of fascism, but they didn't round up their local Jews and other ethnic types nearly as much as the Germans did (near the very end of the war, the Italians did turn over about 4,500 Jews to Gestapo representitives, under strong pressure from Germany. That's a lot of individual tragedies, but when you look at it against the background of WW2, it almost disappears.).
Fascism seems to require telling your chosen audience they are special, and in some poorly defined way, superior to everyone else, and in blameing every complex problem on scapegoats that are well defined enough to make the problems look simple and solvable. Trotting out the Scapegoats whenver there's a reversal of fortune is one of the clearest signs of it.

Re:Just a coincidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for so clearly illustrating the absurd lengths that have to be achieved in order to make the "Star Wars" - "anti-Bush" connection.

[1] But plenty of human rights abuses, terrorist training camps, and other good reasons to eliminate the Hussein regime. Or would you rather argue the world would be better off with his government still in place?

[2] A different administration may have, perhaps, but you have a long way to go before you're convincing anyone Bush, not Hussein, ran Iraq.

[3] The first part of your sentence is correct (the terror alert was questionably raised), the second is not (to prop up Bush's poll ratings). Or do you actually have a source to confirm this that you didn't post?

[4] Last I checked, the move to call them "Freedom Fries" did not originate from the White House.

[5] Ah, the ACLU. A reliable and impartial source to be sure. Hint: you may wish to read the act itself and not rely on what you're told by dubious far-left organizations.

[6] I like how you imply that only the second half of the sentence, rather than the whole thing, is the joke. Typical truth-bending in the grand Michael Moore tradition.

Re:Just a coincidence

[Anonymous Coward]

wish I could mod you up.. just used my last mod point :(

Re:Just a coincidence

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

[1] But plenty of human rights abuses, terrorist training camps, and other good reasons to eliminate the Hussein regime.

Please. There are plenty of places in the world where those things are happening, including present day Iraq & Afghanistan. Those weren't the real reasons behind the war, they were coincidental and made for good spin.

Re:Just a coincidence

[SketcheeBoy]

Tolkien was pointing out that allegory is intentional by the author while applicability was made by the reader. Tolkien's books aren't an allegory. Whether or not this Star Wars movie is an allegory is a different matter entirely.

Re:Just a coincidence

[AJWM]

Don't believe much that McNamara has to say about Viet Nam. He's no doubt trying to shift blame from his own idiotic policies (eg "measured response", where the goal was not to win the war so much as to keep fighting it without losing, hoping that the other guy will eventually get tired and give up) that prolonged the war unnecessarily. He also pretty much killed the X-aircraft programs and curtailed other technological research that might upset the balance of the Cold War, thereby prolonging that one, too. (It was Reagan's reinstatement of such programs that ultimately ended the Cold War.)

Eisenhower wasn't President when McNamara was SecDef, Kennedy and Johnson were. If he didn't like Eisenhower's policies, he was in exactly the position to change them.

Re:Just a coincidence

[ChrisMaple]

A popular far-left line circa 1970 was "you're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem."

Re:Just a coincidence

[ChrisMaple]

Iraq was a clear and present danger. That there were human rights abuses and terrorist training camps may seem coincidental to you, but they go hand in glove.

Re:Just a coincidence

[sg3000]

> It's not like the Jedi *don't* see things in absolutes, nor do
> they seem to have a problem with absolutes of their own.

I think that's an interesting point. Perhaps the line is more telling that we think. The original lines are:

ANAKIN: 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, justice, freedom, and security to my new Empire.

OBI-WAN: Your new Empire?

ANAKIN: Don't make me kill you.

OBI-WAN: Anakin, my allegiance is to the Republic ... to democracy.

ANAKIN: If you're not with me, you're my enemy.

OBI-WAN: Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes. I will do what I must.

Obi-Wan should have tried harder to bring Anakin back to the good side, the way Luke did in Episode VI. But Obi-Wan did not, and I believe that Lucas is trying to say that Obi-Wan's subsequent actions were wrong.

Maybe dealing in absolutes is a Sith tendency, and Obi-Wan was falling for the same thing. He believed that Anakin was now evil, and no longer worth saving. In other words, Obi-Wan was considering that either Anakin was his friend or was a Sith. Perhaps Obi-Wan should have avoided the absolutes himself, and he should have tried to save Anakin. This was Lucas's way of indicating that while Obi-Wan's thinking was correct, his actions were wrong.

It seems that Obi-Wan learned his lesson after 20 years of solitude on Tatooine. In Episode IV he tells Han Solo, "There are alternatives to fighting."

This would not be the first time that Lucas has made a character say dialog incongruent to their actions to indicate when their actions are wrong. For example, in Episode II, Mace Windu tells Padme, "We're keepers of the peace. Not soldiers." However, at the end of the movie, Mace is leading clone troops into battle like ... well ... a soldier.

Re:Just a coincidence

[dfjghsk]

i love your logic.. if its happening somewhere else, its a-ok everywhere. [/sarcasm]

Re:Just a coincidence

[Anonymous Coward]

[1] But plenty of human rights abuses, terrorist training camps, and other good reasons to eliminate the Hussein regime. Or would you rather argue the world would be better off with his government still in place?

That's irrelevant here. The whole liberation thing mostly started after the invasion when it became painfully obvious that all the reasons previously given were false. Where are the WMD? Where are the ties to Al Queda? Where is Osama Bin Laden?

[2] A different administration may have, perhaps, but you have a long way to go before you're convincing anyone Bush, not Hussein, ran Iraq.

Yeah, just blame it on $PreviousPresident. Though I must admit, blaming it on Reagen is a new one.

[3] The first part of your sentence is correct (the terror alert was questionably raised), the second is not (to prop up Bush's poll ratings). Or do you actually have a source to confirm this that you didn't post?

From the article:
"The level is raised if a majority on the President's Homeland Security Advisory Council favors it and President Bush concurs. Among those on the council with Ridge were Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI chief Robert Mueller, CIA director George Tenet, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell."

In other words, the group of people that decide whether to raise the terror alert had fairly high stakes on the outcome of the presidental elections. Possible conflict of interest? While it will probably never be "proved", many people seem capable of connecting the dots.

[4] Last I checked, the move to call them "Freedom Fries" did not originate from the White House.

No, it didn't. But the White House did plenty of "appealing to people's fear and rallying nationalism".

[5] Ah, the ACLU. A reliable and impartial source to be sure. Hint: you may wish to read the act itself and not rely on what you're told by dubious far-left organizations.

Maybe you should read the act and open a newspaper every once and a while?

[6] I like how you imply that only the second half of the sentence, rather than the whole thing, is the joke. Typical truth-bending in the grand Michael Moore tradition.

Doing some research, GW Bush has actually said that famous quote more than once.

1. "I told all four [congressional leaders] that I felt like this election happened for a reason; that it pointed out-- the Delay in the outcome should make it clear to all of us-- that we can come together to heal whatever wounds may exist, whatever residuals there may be. And I really look forward to the opportunity. I hope they've got my sense of optimism about the possible, and enthusiasm about the job. I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's okay. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier... [Bush chuckles, audience laughs] ...just so long as I'm the dictator [more laughter]." - Washington, DC, December 18, 2000

2. "You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." - "The Taming of Texas," Governing Magazine, July 1998

3. "Dealing with Congress is a matter of give and take. The president doesn't get everything he wants, the Congress doesn't get everything they want. But we're finding good common ground. A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." - Washington, DC, July 26, 2001

Does that make you feel better? It sure doesn't make me feel any better.

Re:Just a coincidence

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

Clear and present danger... didn't you hear the news? Not even Bush believes there are WMDs in iraq anymore.

Re:Just a coincidence

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

Who's logic is that? I never said those things are ok everywhere.

Re:Just a coincidence

[be-fan]

While I don't doubt that the particular absolutist construction has been used before, the particular statement "you're either with [us], or you're..." is particularly well attributable to Bush. My point is not that Bush is unique in his view, but that Lucas's jab was directed at him, rather than at the idea in general.

Re:Just a coincidence

[Anonymous Coward]

its your logic.. you used the fact that there "are plenty of places in the world where those things are happening" to dispute the fact that we went to war for that reason.

The WMD threat may have been based on fualty intelligence, but I'm definately not losing any sleep over Hussein losing power in Iraq.

Hussein was a decade long threat, and repeatedly found ways to provoke us. Repeatedly firing on US planes patrolling the no-fly zone, exporting oil illegally (ie: not part of the food-for-oil program), importing goods illegally, etc, etc, etc.

Hind-sight is 20-20.. I can understand if someone was looking at the intel reports, and thought 'if there is even a slim chance he could be acquiring WMDs, we need to prevent him from doing so at any cost'.

Hussein was a nut and a dictactor.. if you dont think so, I suggest you take off your rose-colored glasses.

Re:Just a coincidence

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Not even Bush believes there are WMDs in iraq anymore.

What's more, he doesn't care where OBL is. Maybe he's in the basement or something...

Re:Just a coincidence

[Fulcrum of Evil]

It was Reagan's reinstatement of such programs that ultimately ended the Cold War

• It was the USSR's own failure to meet its internal needs that brought about its downfall.
• It was the NATO's continued pressure and sanctions that caused the USSR to fall
• It was Reagan's ludicrous star wars project that bankrupted the USSR
• It was Gorbachev's policy reforms that destabilized the USSR such that it crumbled.

Okay, so there were a lot of reasons the USSR fell. There's no reason to pin it on Reagan just because he was around when the music stopped.

Re:Just a coincidence

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

its your logic.. you used the fact that there "are plenty of places in the world where those things are happening" to dispute the fact that we went to war for that reason.

Yes - that is exactly what I did - disputed the stated reasons for entering a war. I did not at all say human rights abuses & terrorist training camps were "a-ok everywhere".

The WMD threat may have been based on fualty intelligence, but I'm definately not losing any sleep over Hussein losing power in Iraq.

Are you loosing any sleep over the fact that the president of the most powerful country in the world told a blatant lie to start a war - and got re-elected?

Hind-sight is 20-20.. I can understand if someone was looking at the intel reports, and thought 'if there is even a slim chance he could be acquiring WMDs, we need to prevent him from doing so at any cost'.

Except "a slim chance he could be acquiring WMDs" is not at all what was going through their mind. What was going through their mind was that he had hundreds of tons of checical weapons and mobile factories for making bio weapons... you know, all the stuff Colin Powell presented to the UN security council before the war.

Hussein was a nut and a dictactor.. if you dont think so, I suggest you take off your rose-colored glasses.

No, I agree. The thing is Bush is a quite a nut himself, and as a US citizen that is more concerning to me than Hussein ever was.

Re:Just a coincidence

[anarkhos]

You get an F in history mate.

Hitler was in it for a higher purposes as well, some of them now reflected in the green party of all places.

Re:Just a coincidence

[SeanAhern]

Sigh. This has been hashed out long before. But I'll go ahead and add comments anyway. This will get modded way offtopic, since it is.

Read the following quotes, and ask yourself, if this were the information you had, wouldn't you consider Iraq to be a clear and present danger? If we can't trust the assertions of our Democratic leaders, who can we trust?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a

Re:Just a coincidence

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

Read the following quotes, and ask yourself, if this were the information you had, wouldn't you consider Iraq to be a clear and present danger? If we can't trust the assertions of our Democratic leaders, who can we trust?

Bush had a lot more information than random quotes from other politicians. Some of it was actually true. However, that was brushed aside as it was not conducive to the long-established PNAC agenda of American dominance in the middle east.

And for that matter, no, I don't trust our democratic "leaders" either, frankly. I don't trust government in general (any more than I have to). Clinton had his own set of problems. If it were him leading us into this bullshit war today, I wouldn't approve of it then either.

Re:Just a coincidence

[AJWM]

Well, arguably your first and perhaps fourth point relate to the third. And it wasn't ludicrous, it was a strategy of technology (google for that phrase if you don't get it).

But certainly, there were other factors. Whether they'd have the effect they did when they did (rather than years or decades later) sans Reagan (imagine four more years of Carter, for example) can't easily be answered.

I was in the USSR (as it still was then) less than a week after Gorbachev was ousted. Interesting times.

Re:Just a coincidence

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Well, arguably your first and perhaps fourth point relate to the third.

My first point was more long term than just the reagan era - I would argue that the USSR had failed to meet its citizens' needs at least as far back as the 60's. The 80's and beyond were simply the endgame.

Re:Just a coincidence

[blonde rser]

It just so happens that it can be argued that Bush has been following the same pattern as any drive towards fascism. Thus, any parallels to the current state of the U.S. is purely coincidental.

It is silly to think that this is just a coincidence. Lucas has never made it a secret that he has a strong disliking of first Nixon and now Bush. If he would tailer his films originally as a Nixon criticisms it makes perfect sense that he would alter them so that they would suit as Bush criticisms. But so what? If you're waiting for a truly neutral commentary on politics you are going to be waiting a long time.

It's fair to take Lucas' points to heart. It's a little naive to think that Lucas wrote about the road to fascism and left his feelings for Bush out of it.

Re:Just a coincidence

[evilviper]

*Sigh*

You're just spouting bullshit now...

Let's address the quotes first. The first 6 don't even imply Hussein currently has (at the time of the quotes) WMDs. They talk about what he did have, what he is trying to do, etc.

The first quote from Al Gore don't point to WMDs in the slightest. It is a fact that Hussein has biological/chemical weapons hidden in Iraq, which were made before the Gulf War, but had a very short shelf-life and were no longer dangerous.

You also post NUMEROUS quotes that talk about Hessein's SEARCH for WMDs. It's thoroughly accepted that he was searching for anything he could get, but SEARCHING is a long way from HAVING anything.

Most of the quotes you give, however, are several years into the Bush administration, when they were influencing CIA reports upon which all these quotes are based. Bush knew about the lies... the democrats you quoted certainly did not know they were being lied to, and accepted the information as if it was factual.

Okay, now this is really off the topic, because the quotes do not matter. These are not quotes from people who were in Iraq and saw weapons, they are based upon the REAL sources of information.

The real source information was detailed to the public before the invasion of Iraq. One claim after another, it was quickly disproven by the news media. Some of them were obviously false. The aluminum centerfuges idea was shot down by The Department of Energy as being completely wrong, long before the invasion.

In fact, Bush had a chance to test out all of his intelligence when weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq. The intelligence was repeatedly and consistently proven wrong. Bush chose to go to war despite that.

Re:Just a coincidence

[Anonymous Coward]

[1] The human rights abuses were irrelevant?? Alrighty. I'll keep that one in mind next time Amnesty International starts bitching about Abu Gharib or Gitmo again. Oh, and P.S. Iraq's ties to Al-Qaeda have been proven. Pull your head out of the L.A. Ties and read a paper that reports the news.

[2] Unsurprisingly, you didn't defend your point. Bush did not and does not run Iraq, and thus did not control both sides of the war as Palpatine did.

[3] Again, you didn't prove your point. Point out where Bush used an alert to bolster his poll ratings? For that matter, count how many of the people you mentioned remained in their post after the election...?

[4] Yes, with good reason.

[5] No source provided. I'm noticing a pattern...?

[6] And clearly, it was a joke each time. Once again, my point stands.

Re:Just a coincidence

[virtual_mps]

Only one point I'd like to add though, is that unlike hitler and other fascists in history, I do believe Bush is not so much after the allure and power in and of itself, but rather by a dubious sense of 'higher purpose' by his beliefs and his insistance that everyone share them. From his point of view it's his 'duty' to bring democracy and stability to the world

I think you must forget the state of germany in the years following WWI. The economy was in a shambles, leading to high unemployment and hyperinflation. The country was struggling under the demands of the versailles treaty, which many in germany considered unjustified and frankly illegal. From his (and his supporters) point of view, Hitler did bring a return of stability and the rule of law. They just glossed over the bad parts. The thing is, most tyrants come to power believing that their rule will be beneficial and that are helping their people. Very few tyrants go in with the goal of being evil.

Re:Just a coincidence

[Some_Llama]

And there weren't any terrorist training camps either, Al-Queda (sp?) didn't like Saddam as his religous party was counter to their beliefs...

They even tried to make camps in Iraq with Saddam's help and he refused them...

Re:Just a coincidence

[Some_Llama]

"but I'm definately not losing any sleep over Hussein losing power in Iraq."

Maybe you should lose sleep about how many of our troops have been killed SINCE Saddam was captured by "insurgents"

OR

all of the terrorists that have been spawned by our illegal war in Iraq?

"exporting oil illegally (ie: not part of the food-for-oil program),"

And who, among others, were involved in this? Dick Cheney's old company haliburton... gg

Re:There's a good easter egg in The Phantom Menace

[Sancho]

And a long time ago?

No, you are not "cool".

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason you made this post is so you could "boast" about how you haven't seen EP3.

FYI - being a mindless drone while you bitch and complain about something you know nothing about doesn't get you far in life and just makes you look stupider.

Re:No, you are not "cool".

[PsiPsiStar]

Serves me right for replying to a troll, but what the hell.

I was complaining about episodes 1 and 2 which I did watch. The dialogue was horrid and noone's saying otherwise. With all the effort that Lucas put into hyping ep #3 he deserves to get critically burned for allowing such a major flaw and not giving the details to someone else to write.

FYI - being a mindless drone while you bitch and complain about something you know nothing about doesn't get you far in life and just makes you look stupider.

You sound like you're an 18 year old or somthing. Here's a clue, Being "cool" doesn't matter jack once you get out of college.

But if having no standards or critical sense is your seceret to success 'in life' (it's just a movie, for God's sake. Don't act so damn hurt if someone criticizes it ) then best of luck to you.

I make a good salary, my company pays full health and dental as well as my housing. "Getting far in life" is not too far up on my list of worries.

Finding well scripted sci-fi is a bit harder.

Re:There's a good easter egg in The Phantom Menace

[Anonymous Coward]

The far far away can be explained, but what about the long ago part?

C3PO

[Umbral Blot]

Does anyone know how C3P0 lost his right leg, which is silver in the original films instead of gold. I expected him to lose it in episode 3.

Re:C3PO

[lordsilence]

Dont worry, we'll see it in Star Wars episode 2.5, and then they'll explain how he gets a new leg in episode 2.6, but not after they release episode 1.5.

Re:C3PO

[bestguruever]

It was stolen by white robots and subsequently lost, falling into the slipstream and eventually landing in England where it was used as a cricket trophy for some years before being recovered.

Re:C3PO

[mbrewthx]

HE got a new covering for it. It is explained in one of the expanded universe books, the chapter was called "Leia pimps her protocol droid"

Re:C3PO

[croddy]

i think i'll wait for 2.6.12.

Re:C3PO

[EvanED]

Nice reference, but that was the tree branch or whatever it was.

The leg just hung about on the planet with all the mattresses for a couple million years, and the white robots acquired it.

Re:C3PO

[thesandtiger]

God help me for knowing this, but: Lucas said he always wanted 3P0 to have a "scrap"/"thrown together" look about him, even when he'd been shined up and overhauled - so he keeps the silver leg through all the original 3 movies.

I *think* he kept it like that in these 3 too, but I can't remember.

Re:C3PO

[Andrew-Unit]

Anthony Daniels discusses this question on his personal website:

Q Thank you for connecting to your fans. We really appreciate that one of our idols will actually listen to our opinion. Will we ever discover the backstory for the silver shin? LoserkidBXCR

A As you may have gathered from all the fluff that is surrounding Episode III, Threepio is, for the first time, completely gold from knee to foot. I believe this is in honour of the expensive carpets in Miss Padme's bedroom and the rather elegant designs of her more public areas. I hope that remark isn't open to misinterpretation. And now I come to think about it, in Ep II, her bedroom had the privacy of Penn Bus Station. Oh well. Actually, Threepio was always slightly embarrassed not to be perfectly formed so it's a topic of conversation best not attempted. Artoo likes to talk about stuff like that. AD

Re:C3PO

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was appropriated by the Galactic Actors Guild who used it as a trophy for 'The Most Gratuitous Use of the Word Belgium in a Serious Screenplay'

The irony of this was lost after the first presentation of the trophy.

Re:C3PO

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that 3CPO was built from a kit, this explains how a six years old could put him together and why there's others droids around that look the same. Plenty of cars with a door painted a different color from the other bits, around here, too. :) guess droid spare parts for that model are very modular. Why not? You can buy new spare parts for an old VW beetle today, and it was designed like 60 years ago.

Stupid webmaster

[Anonymous Coward]

If you put clickable thumbnails on a page, don't, I repeat, DON'T make them href="javascript:" links! The correct way to link to a picture which you want to show in a popup window is to make the link to the image itself and capture the onclick event to open a window. That way a visitor can middle-click the link to open the tab and disable Javascript to avoid security risks without getting empty tabs or rendering your site non-functional. and make sure that showImage returns false to stop the event before it triggers the href.

Re:Stupid webmaster

[Anonymous Coward]

That was supposed to be

<a href="picture.jpg" onClick="return showImage(this.href, otherparameters)">

and make sure that the showImage returns false to stop the event before it triggers the href.

are they in Episode 1 too?

[johnpaul191]

weren't there ET-like things in the senate? i forget if it was episode 1 or 2, but i am thinking 1. when they pan around all the reps in the senate you can see wookies and whatever else and i am 99% sure there were little ET things. i noticed it in the theater, i am not sure how easy they would be to spot on a TV screen.

Re:are they in Episode 1 too?

[bbzzdd]

Yes, they were in the senate in Episode 1. Only for a few frames in the wayyy corner of the screen, but unmistakably ETs.

Rumor also has it Spielberg directed the final dual between Obi-Wan and Anakin (uncredited). We was supposed to have directed Return of the Jedi but the Director's Guild wouldn't allow it.

Re:are they in Episode 1 too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. There were ETs there. That was a "response" to the scene in ET were ET sees a kid wearing a Yoda costume and yells "home, home!".

Re:Additional Easter Droids

[Anonymous Coward]

Another one that no one has mentioned is that the R2D2 and C3PO droids that we see are the same ones as in the original trilogy! Amazing or what?

lame costume

[globaljustin]

excellent comment...I had similar feelings as I watched. Especially when Obi-Wan abandons a crawling, one-armed Anakin. "good/evil" switch indeed. It seems everyone abandoned Anakin when he needed them, including Obi-Wan.

You'd think Obi-Wan would have taken the mortally injured Anakin back to be imprisoned if not try to win him back from dark side, but no, Obi Wan left him to die. The emporer was the only person who helped him. I can understand why Anakin would hate the Jedi.

I also am disappointed in the anakin/vader look. They could have put him into a really cool 'young vader' cyborg suit similar to the ridiculously names 'general grievous' (who as obviously the model for Vader's cybernetic enhancements).

Why put him directly into the big, stiff, clumsy, outdated 'old' suit?...he didn't need all that cyborg technology either, just new arms and leg. Seems like they were overly eager to make 'new hope' references.

Re:lame costume

[Anonymous Coward]

Anakin was dead for all intents and purposes. The switch was complete. Obi-Wan should have insured the burning corpse was truly deceased, but showed his compassion immensely in not filleting the body. Then I read the rest of your comment: Did you completely miss the part where his body was on fire? Not many people I know decided to take their bathroom break during this scene.

Re:lame costume

[Anonymous Coward]

-1 Retard

Re:lame costume

[Anonymous Coward]

-5 douchebag.

Re:lame costume

[Wolfkin]

I think you misspelled "cowardice".

That wasn't compassion. If you're out to stop someone anyway, and suddenly, due to your actions, they're on fire and about to burn to death while clearly still conscious, do you

A) Try to save them from dying
B) Just end it to stop the suffering
C) Walk away, leaving them to suffer horribly and die anyway

Either of A or B can be spun as compassionate, but C is just cowardly. This is good, though. In portraying it the way he did in Ep 3, Lucas gave actual emotional reasons for the events in 4-6. I wish the person who wrote 3 had had something to do with 1 and 2, because 3 was the best SW movie I've ever seen. :)

Okay, that stupid image thing is new. :( I lost my first attempt to reply because I didn't notice it.

Tarzan

[_Shorty-dammit]

nobody mentions the Tarzan yell let out by one of the wookies?!

So many of you hating the film!?

[koniosis]

Partially off-topic but myself and everyone I know who has seen Ep3 believe it to be an amazing film, where did all these Ep3 haters come from? Sure there's some bad acting (*cough* hayden *cough*) and cheesy padmae moments that have no chemistry, but the film is very enjoyable to watch, has excellent action and its pretty damn fast paced all things considering. It's very dark and the story is actually very good, it's a shame that so many of you didn't enjoy it :(

Re:So many of you hating the film!?

[mickyflynn]

pretty much everyone born before 1990.

Re:So many of you hating the film!?

[Nasarius]

"Excellent action" does not a good movie make. For example, The Phantom Menace; I remember commenting to a friend that it felt like nothing more than a bunch of loosely-connected action sequences.

The overall story in RotS is fine. It's just that the execution was dull and unconvincing.

Re:So many of you hating the film!?

[be-fan]

where did all these Ep3 haters come from?

The theaters...

Seriously, though, I didn't think it was a *bad* movie, just not a very good one. The acting and dialog really hurt the movie for me. It kept taking me out of the action, because it just plain didn't fit. Like during the first scene where Obi Wan and Anakin invade that cruiser. I'd get drawn in for a few moments, then snap back when someone opened their mouth. It just looked so obvious that the only reason they were talking was because that's what the script said at that point. I particularly hated the writers tendency to insert "cool" or "humerous" phrases in situations where they didn't make sense, or were totally out of place.

Obi Wan in particular was horrible. He was nothing like the guy from the original films, or even Ep. I and II. Hey made way to many quips and generally came off as a wiseass.

Re:So many of you hating the film!?

[cyberfelon2k5]

Dude, what are you saying? This is Slashdot, you can't actually like the prequel trilogy...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

lots of other movie plot ideas...

[Anonymous Coward]

While watching Anakin roast in the lava flow, and claw with his robot hand, I realized... HEY THIS IS RIGHT OUT OF TERMINATOR 2!

And the part with all the elevator jumping -- right out of DIE HARD

and the ET scene where Yoda flies home?

seems pretty lame to me -- the rest of the movie is just rehashing the same old star wars plots -- nothing really suprising

lightsaber accessories

[Anonymous Coward]

someone could make those lightsabers a lot better if they just added a wrist strap. How many times did they drop those things??

Re:lightsaber accessories

[ghostunit]

that would hamper their control of the lightsaber, would look stupid and besides, they can just use the force to bring the lightsaber to their hands

Re:lightsaber accessories

[spamchang]

so when they do drop it, the lightsaber can spin around and lop off the wielder's torso at the waist? remember, the blade weighs nothing and the center of mass is in the handle.

Re:lightsaber accessories

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I recall, lightsabers have dead-man switches -- when they're dropped, they turn off.

Re:lightsaber accessories

[ziggy_zero]

What I don't understand is where all these "spare" lightsabers come from. Isn't it supposed to be a rite of passage for a Jedi to build their own lightsaber? How can there be extras lying around if somebody loses theirs? RotS made it seem like you couldn't walk around without someone handing you a lightsaber.

Noooooo!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://darthno.ytmnd.com/

Easter Eggs??

[fm6]

Easter Eggs are, by definition, hidden. These are inside jokes, or references, or whatever, but they're certainly not Easter Eggs. Especially not the Wilhelm Scream, which has been an inside Hollywood joke for decades.

Plot in the trailers?

[michaelmalak]

From the linked article (emphasis added):

Fans who meticulously studied the release trailer may have noticed two shots nowhere to be found in the finished film. One is of a determined hooded Anakin marching down the Trade Federation cruiser hallway, and the other is of Ki-Adi-Mundi reluctantly turning to face some unseen fate while in the Jedi gunship hangar.

These shots were never intended for the final film but were needed to help fill out the story told in the trailer. The Anakin shot had been cut -- it was from the Jedi Temple attack. If you look at the animatics version of the shot (Hyperspace members, click here to see it), you can get an idea of what the shot was originally meant to represent. The footage was deemed trailer appropriate, so ILM composited the greenscreen footage of Anakin against a background plate of the cruiser hallway.

Intentionally putting stuff that "fills out the story" into only trailers? I don't know what I find more irritating, that they did this (and are now charging for it on the Internet), or that I no longer have the time to follow the Star Wars Universe in such detail.

Re:Plot in the trailers?

[Chrondeath]

At least the missing shots bore some resemblance to the film, unlike the Highlander: Endgame trailer...

Re:Plot in the trailers?

[nagora]

Intentionally putting stuff that "fills out the story" into only trailers?

It's still a step up from Peter Jackson's method of making a movie that's a sketchy outline of the DVD. "Here, Sam, where did you get that?" "Never you mind, Mr Frodo, just you make sure you buys the proper film when it comes out on disc, see?"

TWW

It's over, people. The trades say it's dead

[Animats]

Went to see "Madagascar" last night, and more screens were showing "The Longest Yard" than "Revenge of the Shit". Lucasfilm bought themselves a good opening weekend with heavy PR, but this film has no legs.

As the Hollywood Reporter puts it, "The end of the "Star Wars" movies leaves a gaping hole in the galaxy of geekdom. And it begs the larger question: Is the era of the superfan over? No longer is there any variation of "Star Trek" on TV. The Grateful Dead essentially passed with Jerry Garcia, and even Phish is done now. The seminal pop-cult experience may be a thing of the past."

Finally.

Re:It's over, people. The trades say it's dead

[01000011011101000111]

Oh come off it... Real geeks are awaiting Serenity's release date... 'Trek and 'Wars are *way* too mainstream for real fanboys... The problem with pop-cult experience is that it doesn't really get visible to the mainstream until it's nearly dead...

Re:It's over, people. The trades say it's dead

[Anonymous Coward]

> "Revenge of the Shit"

oh, ho ho, you're so creative and imaginative. wow. that was really original. your wit is truly aweinspiring.

> As the Hollywood Reporter puts it, "The end of the "Star Wars" movies [...] begs the larger question: Is the era of the superfan over?"

i don't trust anyone who misuses the terminology "begging the question." it has a specific technical meaning in the field of debate, not what you ignorant lot think of when you see the word 'beg.'

Re:It's over, people. The trades say it's dead

[Anonymous Coward]

The First Law of Fandom says that geek cannot be created or destroyed, simply transformed from one type of geek to another.

http://www.serenitymovie.com/

Re:It's over, people. The trades say it's dead

[pintomp3]

we still have apple /me ducks

No spoilers on page 1, anyhow

[mactari]

There's a warning about spoilers on the page, and I just thought I'd say for those who, like me, haven't watched yet but would like to see the Eggs, the first page of the story doesn't have anything that seems particularly spoilerific.

Page 2 has some debatably smelly stuff, so I stopped there.

Not to mention...

[jpellino]

..."Commander Cody" as a character name. After several isolated references to him as "Commander" or "Cody", they finally do pull the trigger on this one and call him "Commander Cody". Sadly, no sign of the Lost Planet Airmen. Wonder if this is a George Lucas fave - the real Commander Cody did live in Marin county for some time...

Re:Not to mention...

[Anonymous Coward]

the real Commander Cody did live in Marin county for some time...

Lucas grew up in Modesto (Stanislaus Co.), about 90 miles away. Modesto is where American Graffiti was shot.

My uncle, who was the Lucas family's milkman for a few years, says all he ever saw George doing was watching TV.

Re:Not to mention...

[Anonymous Coward]

Way off. I think Ep III was referring to this guy, *the* Commando Cody. When I saw that this character existed in the Star Wars universe, I was at first upset, thinking Lucas was a lazy SOB, but now think it's just a nod to classic sci-fi.

Re:Not to mention...

[Brandybuck]

The drivein in American Graffiti was Merle's Drivein, located in Visalia. It's still in business, but more than 90 miles away from Modesto.

What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[reporter]

I do not understand the fixation with the Millenium Falcon and other trivial "Easter Eggs" in the "Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith".

Other issues are more important. Although I generally consider the new movie to be excellent, I wish that Lucas would have un-did a major thematic flaw in the first 2 stories in this new trilogy. I am referring to the comment, in "Star Wars I", about the force being transferred from person to person via mitochondria (which is labeled "mito chlorians" by one of the characters.)

Note that in the original trilogy, episodes IV-VI of "Star Wars" (SW), Lucas alludes that anyone can be part of the force. Your participation depends solely on your commitment to open-mindedness and the good side of the force. With this force, you can transcend the difficulties that you currently face. That message is a wonderfully uplifting message for kids of past and present generations.

Then, in SW I, Lucas trashes that egalitarian view and says that Jedis are born, not created. Namely, you cannot be part of the good side of the force by your own choice. Jedis are some sort of elite, snobby group whose membership is determined by blood. Such a message, in my opinion, is atrocious and runs counter to the fundamental egalitarianism of Western society.

Was anyone bothered by this fundamental change in one of the themes of SW?

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[hawkbug]

No, I'm not bothered, and here's why: mainly because these midicloreans or whatever they are help you hear the force according to Quigon in Ep I. The more you have, the easier it is for you to use the force. It does not mean that nobody else can use it, it simply makes it easier according to my understanding. So, if you really want to use the force, you have to work at it - just more so if you don't have these things in your blood. But maybe I misunderstood...

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Snaller]

I never noticed that theme. As i recalled it, it was always a question of being born with the ablity. I'm not doubting you about the 4-6, but as I remember it that is what they said.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[pikayou]

Obi-wan in the original trilogy: "The Emperor knew that if Vader were to have any offspring, they would be a threat to him." Why? Because force sensitivity is heritable, and passed down to children from parents. This was not a new notion that Lucas suddenly introduced in the new movies.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is where you are wrong. The emperor was never able to foretell the future. He merely deluded himself into thinking that he had the ability.

So, the Emperor was simply wrong about heritability of the force.

Note that the good characters never made any comment about predestination and heritability of the force. Obi-wan was only explaining the emperor's views on Luke. Obi-wan himself never stated that the force was heritable.

Only the bad characters claimed that people have a destiny and heritability. Vader insisted that Luke's predestined destiny was to destroy the emperor. In the end, Vader, not Luke, destroyed the emporer.

I will get modded down for this comment: the bad characters in the original trilogy act like a bunch of Chinese -- believing in predestination and heritability of ability.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[grumpygrodyguy]

I do not understand the fixation with the Millenium Falcon and other trivial "Easter Eggs" in the "Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith".

It's simply Lucas trying to add legitimacy to something that has none. Namely the 3 prequels. I'm refusing to call anything but the films made in 1977, 1980, and 1983 'starwars' movies. This includes the 're-edits'.

Only the original 3 films count in my book. George Lucas, RIP.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Anonymous Coward]

YOU WERE TEH CHOSEN ONE

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Anonymous Coward]

You hit the nail on the head. In the original trilogy, Obi Wan makes no reference to heritability of the force.

Now, in the new trilogy, Obi Wan insists that the force is inherited.

The great grandparent article is correct. Lucas changed one of the key themes of the original "Star Wars" when he made the new trilogy. I, for one, hate this new theme.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Jace of Fuse!]

Was anyone bothered by this fundamental change in one of the themes of SW?

What bothered me most about the whole thing wasn't that aspect of it. It was that they bothered to explain any aspect of the force at all.

I really enjoyed the SW movies much more when the Force was some mysterious, unexplainable power that certain people learned to tap into. But the moment they start talking about blood tests and midichlorians then suddenly it becomes techno-bable BS.

It's like any other force of nature or technology. The more unrealistic it is, the more I would prefer them not try to explain it with stupid crap to further drive it home to me that what I'm seeing isn't possible.

I have many other serious gripes with Star Wars. RotJ, TPM, and AotC all did me in for even liking Star Wars at all.

Even if III is really that good, I probably won't enjoy it because it's still built on those other piles of crap.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[sg3000]

> Note that in the original trilogy, episodes IV-VI of "Star
> Wars" (SW), Lucas alludes that anyone can be part of the force.
> Your participation depends solely on your commitment to
> open- mindedness and the good side of the force. With this
> force, you can transcend the difficulties that you currently
> face. That message is a wonderfully uplifting message for kids
> of past and present generations.

I think this illustrates the problem with many fans of the original trilogy with regards the new movies. Lucas never said what you described above, and the concept that you describe is not one of his themes. You may have drawn this conclusion as a theme after watching Episodes IV-VI, and it may appeal to you, but it's not part of Lucas's story.

You have to think of Episodes I - VI as as a single movie, and due to the way Lucas made the movies, you walked into the middle of "the film". You drew some conclusions based on incomplete information, and unfortunately your conclusion was wrong.

It's kind of like if you walked into the last half of -- oh I don't know, let's say "Star Trek: First Contact" and you missed the whole part about Picard having been captured and made into a Borg in the first scene. Without this information, you had to create your own "beginning" to make sense of it. So maybe you drew a conclusion that Picard had initially created the Borg initially. Maybe you thought that the movie had a theme similar to Frankenstein, where it was about science dabbling into things that should be left alone. You're happy with the theme, but some years later, you get the opportunity to go back and see the first half of the movie. You see the events you missed, and that new information kills the theme you thought existed.

Episodes IV-VI are like that. Lucas themes existed throughout the movies, but they may not match whatever back story that some fans have created in their own minds once they see all six films. The issue is probably compounded by the fact that Star Wars sprouted a host of ancillary novels and other paraphernalia, to which Lucas does not feel constrained to tie his story.

The midichlorians are important for two reasons. First, they help with a theme of when the Republic degenerates into a dictatorship, science makes way for religion and superstition. In Episode I, it is clear that the Jedi understand the science behind The Force. For example, they actually could measure someone's potential related to the Force by their midichlorians count. By the time Episode IV came around, no one even knew the science behind the Force, and people dismissed it as a "hokey religion." Asimov did a similar theme with his Foundation series of stories.

Second the midichlorians provide an important explanation of why Darth Vader had lost much of his power and why Darth Sideous wanted Luke to be his replacement. Anakin had the highest midichlorian count of any Jedi, including Yoda, and he was destined to be the most powerful Jedi of all. However, when he lost his arms and legs, he lost nearly half his body mass and thus his midichlorian count fell by half. Thus he went from being more powerful than Darth Sideous to being maybe 80% as powerful. Still strong, but not exactly as powerful as Sideous would like. Thus, Sideous sought a replacement in Luke.

As for whether midichlorian counts are contrary to egalitarianism, I don't agree. If you want to be a fighter pilot, you have to have good eyesight. If you're born blind, you could learn to fly a plane (with the audio equivalent of instruments), but it would be surprisingly if that blind pilot flew anywhere nearly as well as the pilot with perfect vision. And perfect vision is often related to genetics. In Lucas's story, Force ability is related to genetics via midichlorians. This was foreshadowed in Episode VI, when Obi-Wan said that Luke and Leia had to be hidden because if the Emperor discovered Anakin had any offspring, they would be a threat to him. In other words, Anakin would pass his genetically high midichlorian count on to his children.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[AndroidCat]

Bah! If Captain Kirk had been there, he would have had Spock and McCoy whip him up a super-charged shot with the same stuff, and once his midideloreans hit 88, you'd see some serious shit!

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Anonymous Coward]

] You may have drawn this conclusion as a theme after watching Episodes IV-VI, and it may appeal to you, but it's not part of Lucas's story.

In short, Lucas alluded to something wonderful in the original trilogy. Then, he SH*TS on my childhood by using "midichlorians" in "Star Wars I" to destroy that wonderful something.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[david.given]

...the force being transferred from person to person via mitochondria...

Uh, midichlorians. Nothing to do with mitochondria.

I saw it last night, in a mostly empty cinema. The main thing I had against the film was quite simply that it wasn't much good. Oh, it was pretty, but that's about all I can say for it --- the acting was awful (although Senator Palpatine was fun in a giggling, frothing-at-the-mouth kind of way and Obi-Wan was doing a workmanlike job); the pacing was rubbish (it kept jumping from scene to scene without actually letting anything resolve itself); the choreography was incoherent (the big space combat at the beginning of the film was practically unfollowable; the battle on Kashyyk was largely non-existant); and, most damning of all, it was clumsy.

For example: on (mumble), the volcano planet at the end. Anakin flies in and we get a nice panoramic shot of the facility. Hey, cool, I think, noticing the blue glow around the base of all the structures. Force shields! Fifteen seconds later, during a long, lingering pan past some more of these force shields, I realise that the only reason that Lucas is putting so much emphasis on them is because at some point they're going to fail and the facility is going to fall into the lava. I was right.

Another example: the whole business with Anakin and the Younglings (hey. Sounds like a 60s band name). Yeah, thinks Lucas. Lets show how eeeeevil Anakin has become by letting him slaughter a whole bunch of innocent children! Muhahaha! And just to ram it home, lets have some doe-eyed kid lisp an unconvincing line to tell us just how much they trust him! That's such blatant, clumsy emotional manipulation that it's almost worthy of Spielberg.

Meh. I'm not even going to go into the Fall of Anakin Skywalker. ("Anakin! Be evil!" "No." "Sure?" "Well... all right, then.")

Incidentally, I don't agree with you in what you're reading into Episodes 4-6. The main thing about these films is that they're not SF; they're epic fantasy wrapped up with science and spaceships. (Luke == the unknown prince who grew up on a farm; Leia == the feisty princess; Han == the rogue with a heart of gold; Darth Vader == the Black Knight; the Emperor (who is never referred to by name) == the evil sorceror...) The original Star Wars films have nothing to do with egalitarianism. They're set in a simpler world of fairy tales where kings and queens rule with absolute power, and where hard work means nothing and destiny means everything.

The Force is magic, plain and simple. It's not something learnt, it's innate. Most of the Force-sensitive people in the Empire have been killed; apart from Obi-Wan, Yoda and the Emperor, the only Force-sensitive people we meet are the Skywalker family --- and the fact that they're family is crucial to the plot. Han does not have it, and never learns it. He simply doesn't have the ability.

(Interestingly, it's canon that R2D2 has some Force sensitivity. Not a lot, but he's the only droid ever to feel the Force --- it's not supposed to be possible.)

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[BRSloth]

It is really sad when someone say "you are jumping into conclusions" and find explanations to the original complain jumping into conclusions...

Nowhere is said that Darth Vader/Anakin gets weaker losing limbs. What is the midichlorian just jumped from the limbs to his head? He would be strong anyway. But I would be jumping into conclusions, don't I?

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[hazem]

Second the midichlorians provide an important explanation of why Darth Vader had lost much of his power and why Darth Sideous wanted Luke to be his replacement. Anakin had the highest midichlorian count of any Jedi, including Yoda, and he was destined to be the most powerful Jedi of all.

Now it sounds like you're drawing your own conclusions without any real store.

In "real-life", my cholesterol count has nothing to do with the volume of blood in my body. If I have my legs cut off, I lose a lot of blood, but once I stabilize, my cholesterol count will be the same - as it's a ratio.

Now, I'm not going to even pretend that I know if "midichlorian count" is a ratio (like cholestrol, red/white cell count, etc), or a summation of the total number - I don't think it was ever mentioned.

So, without knowing that basic fact of the "science of the force", you can't really make any assumptions about that being why Vader lost his power.

Maybe he was just getting old. Even Yoda died of old age.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Reverberant]

Nowhere is said that Darth Vader/Anakin gets weaker losing limbs. What is the midichlorian just jumped from the limbs to his head? He would be strong anyway. But I would be jumping into conclusions, don't I?

It's never stated in the movies, but the idea of Vader losing power because he loses his limbs comes straight from an interview with Lucas in the February issue of Vanity Fair (the one with the SW actors on the cover, p 167, 1st paragraph).

The article isn't online, but you can find people who have quoted portions of the article:

"Anakin, as Skywalker, as a human being, was going to be extremely powerful. But he ended up losing his arms and a leg and became partly a robot. So a lot of his ability to use the Force, a lot of his powers, are curbed at this point, because, as a living form, there's not that much of him left. So his ability to be twice as good as the Emperor disappeared, and now he's maybe 20 percent less than the Emperor. So that isn't what the Emperor had in mind. He wanted this really super guy, but that got derailed by Obi-Wan. So he finds that, with Luke, he can get a more primo version if he can turn Luke to the Dark Side."

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Anonymous Coward]

...the acting was awful...
...it kept jumping from scene to scene without actually letting anything resolve itself...

Was this the first Star Wars movie you've seen? The acting was as good or better than any of the other 5 movies, and every Star Wars movie has the same battle in space\battle on land\battle between individuals thing happening all at once. It happens, with the same jump cuts, in EVERY episode.

I disagree with your interpretation of The Force, but that's philosophical. The points I address above are just you being unfamiliar with or just plain ignoring the style of the series.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[AJWM]

Yep, Lucas broke the fundamental rule that is the magician's prime directive: never explain how it's done. This rule also holds for good science fiction writers: if you're making something up, don't try to explain it -- you'll break the spell for anyone who knows more about the subject than you do (and there will be many).

If he had to have some sort of objective test for the Force (vs the Jedi just sensing that "the Force is strong in this one" of young Anakin), Lucas could have (and may yet, in a re-edit) had the midichlorians be a marker for Force, a side-effect of its presence rather than its cause.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Sumo spice]

The midichlorians or mito-chlorians can not be the mitochondria or the equivalent because mitochondria are only passed maternally. So Luke and Leia's mitochondria would have come from Padme not Anakin. What bothers me the most about is if the Force=midichlorians and you can detect them in tissue it opens up all kinds of questions. Can you transfer them like blood? And you grow them and make more? Are they alive? And if they are so integral to feeling the force then why isn't it more central to the plot. Wouldn't the Sith be all about stealing other people's midichlorians or making their own to become more powerful. The Force just didn't need an explanation. And if you give it a scientific one well then give a role in the story instead of a throwaway line.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[david.given]

Was this the first Star Wars movie you've seen? The acting was as good or better than any of the other 5 movies, and every Star Wars movie has the same battle in space\battle on land\battle between individuals thing happening all at once. It happens, with the same jump cuts, in EVERY episode.

I know the films quite well, thank-you. (I don't like to think about episodes 1 and 2.)

And no, the choreography in 3, 4 and 5 doesn't work like that. It's a completely different style. The camera-work is far more static and tends to focus on single characters far more; and there's usually only one plot thread --- the only example of multiple plot threads I can think of off-hand is Luke and Vader vs the Rebel attack on Death Star II at the end of RotJ, and even then, the two strands were related.

I think one major difference is that RotS was rushed. There's just too much stuff happening, which meant that they couldn't devote enough screen time to any particular plot thread to do it justice... I mean, what actually happened to the battle on Kashyyk?

You know, given that RotS is the only prequel in which anything actually interesting happens, they'd have done much better to chuck the first two episodes and expand RotS into a trilogy in its own right. But don't let George Lucas write it, for gods' sake...

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Kirsha]

(Interestingly, it's canon that R2D2 has some Force sensitivity. Not a lot, but he's the only droid ever to feel the Force --- it's not supposed to be possible.)

And how is that canon? Where was that shown?

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[ChrisMaple]

Ah, love, let us be true

To one another! for the world, which seems

To lie before us like a land of dreams,

So various, so beautiful, so new,

Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,

Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;

And we are here as on a darkling plain

Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,

Where ignorant armies clash by night.

Last verse of Dover Beach (1867) by Matthew Arnold

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Brandybuck]

You have to think of Episodes I - VI as as a single movie, and due to the way Lucas made the movies, you walked into the middle of "the film".

Hate to burst your bubble, but that's utter crap. It's Lucas Revisionism at its worst. The original Star Wars was a stand alone movie. Period. It didn't even have the "Episode IV" subtitle in the original theatrical release. The plot wasn't one sixth of a story, but a near-direct reuse of the plot from "The Hidden Fortress".

Lucas may have orginally envisioned a series of movies, but he most certainly did not have a complete plot in mind for all six episodes.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Anonymous Coward]

"You have to think of Episodes I - VI as as a single movie, and due to the way Lucas made the movies, you walked into the middle of "the film"."

I'm cool with that.

"You drew some conclusions based on incomplete information, and unfortunately your conclusion was wrong."

Well, Obi-wan (Ben) would say that it's your point of view whether it's wrong or not. But relativism aside, the brutal case-in-point is that the backstory/explanations we made up for ourselves as kids are 100 times better than GL managed with millions of dollars in technology and casting talent.

The guy cannot write a fucking story to save his life. Maybe we _are_ wrong, those weren't his themes. Fine then; his themes suck ass. Ours our better. I'll hang on to the better ones despite the fact they may not be canon.

GL didn't kill my childhood; however, he has managed to kill the wonder and creativity that I enjoyed via Star Wars in my childhood by being a shitty, uncreative story writer and forcing his shit to be what ended up on the screen instead of letting someone who can write give him a little help.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[KH]

I guess no one reads this comment by now. But here is what I've been wondering...

Anakin doesn't know his father. It is obvious that the two generations (Anakin and Luke) were say gifted. It'd be reasonable to assume that Anakin's father had such a force as the next two generations. Who was he? Yoda?

This is where I suspect the pre-prequel might enter. This time, Lukas may have been thinking of pre-prequels before starting to make prequels.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Rauser]

Anakin's father was Count Dooku.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[delus10n0]

Lucas has stated (and it's been in the books) that Anakin lost some of his dark-side abilities when he became Vader, such as his ability to "stop" or collect force lightning (because his arms are both fake.)

I am such a friggin' geek.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

Lucas has stated (and it's been in the books) that Anakin lost some of his dark-side abilities when he became Vader, such as his ability to "stop" or collect force lightning (because his arms are both fake.)

Then how does he use his hands to choke with the force? Or his fingers to flip the switch on the carbon feezing chamber from a distance?

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Anonymous Coward]

force lightning needs organic hands - hey, don't look at me, it's in the novel of Ep III.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly- if Mitoclorians help you 'hear' or 'control' the Force, why are people not trading in illegal transfusions of them?

For an example from here-now, Olympic athletes will have blood drawn, seperate out the red blood cells (oxygen carriers), keep it refrigerated, and then have it put back before they compete. This increases the amount of O2 that their muscles get, and increases their performance.

Imagine the Sith kidnapping people who have moderate amounts of mitochlorians, keeping them locked up, and runnign their blood thru a dialysis machine to filter out the mitochlorians. That might account for the Sith's power, and even their evil-ness.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not huge on Star Wars, but after just watching the first two recently (hey, I figured I might as well so I can have the story fresh for Ep. III ;)) I remember that in Ep. 1 Qui-gon mentions how midiclorians are contained in all living cells. This would then mean that a midiclorian count would be a summation instead of a ratio. Loosing half your cells would imply a loss of half your midiclorians (assuming they're distributed evenly among all cells), and thus half your force power.

Even cholesterol is a summation (it's measured in mg/dL of blood), though because blood can be replenished it's levels would indeed go back to your average after significant loss. Since your arms and legs can't grow back, this would explain why the loss of power in the force is permanant.

Now, assuming this is true (w00r for dragging BS further than it was ever meant to!), why wouldn't they attach parts of now-dead jedi to Vader? Unless the midiclorians die instantanously, one would expect that you could take whatever Vader is missing off some of the most powerful dead jedi and just attach them. Perhaps rejection by the body is a concern (as it is with organ replacement)? /me is no Biology major, so I haven't a clue...

Again, I'm not a huge Star Wars nerd or anything, but it's just a possible explanation that popped into my head while reading your post :)

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[MidnightBrewer]

I think you're putting a little bit more weight on the story than is necessary. George Lucas wasn't trying to spread some sort of egalitarian gospel to uplift the common man; he was trying to make a fun sci-fi movie. People take from it what they want, but in the end, it is his story to screw up as he sees fit. Now that we have the whole story, maybe people are finding they don't like Star Wars as much as they thought they did. Or perhaps they're watching it as adults rather than children, and find that their perspectives have changed.

I won't even get into the "fundamental egalitarianism of Western society." :)

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[JudgeFurious]

If I had to guess these are simply gestures he does without thinking as he chokes someone with the force or flips a switch across the room. They probably are not necessary but he does them anyway.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[fermion]

I think the meta whatever thingies were badly handled. However, as others have mentioned, in the first three eps we are dealing with technology and science. In the next three eps, rationality has left the universe, and we have the mystic power of the force. This cycling between rationality and mysticism can happen very quickly, as we have seen in our own real world.

The real issue is this. There is clearly an innate and learned component of the force. Although anyone can learn to use the force, as was mentioned in ep 4, certain people have a talent. This is why Luke and Lea are so important. They are the in the blood line of a powerful Jedi. I don't remeber if what the talk was of Anikins father or mother. This also is widely seen in our real world. The real problem is that if we have identified the root cause of the talent, then it would seem that the talent would be bottled.

So, the thingies were just a throw away plot device to explain some point. This is a problem with Star Wars. It would have been somewhat interesting to explore the scince. Is it passed down or mutations? Is it not bottled to protect the Jedi monopoly, or is there some technical reason. Since both luke and lea manefested, and since only the father manefested, from a genetic point fo view, one would think it was a pretty common trait. This is also supported by the fact that it is cross species, but aparrently not with the hairy species.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Javagator]

Anakin's father was Jar Jar.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[glyph42]

Wow, that's almost exactly what I said to my friends as we walked out of the theatre after seeing Episode I.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[tomhudson]

Come off it - SW3 sucks. Lousy acting, poor directing - forced points - you get the sense the whole way through that Lucas is rubbing your nose in the obvious - "Look here - this is how I connect these two events".

It was more like "Star Wars Lite" - definitely less filling. People are only going to see it a second time to go "WTF - I must have missede something - it can't be THAT bad." But it is. It's a bomb. A turkey. It leaves you cold at the end.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Schemat1c]

Anakin doesn't know his father. It is obvious that the two generations (Anakin and Luke) were say gifted. It'd be reasonable to assume that Anakin's father had such a force as the next two generations. Who was he? Yoda?

I remember Anakins mother saying there was no father. It was an immaculate conception brought about by these miticlorians or whatever they are called. I read it as a way to make him seem more messiah like since he was supposed to be 'the chosen one'.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Anonymous Coward]

"they're" family? You moron.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[adolfojp]

Palpatine said that his master had the ability to create life by manipulating the midiclorians. He also said that he learned everything from his master. Anakin was created by Palpatine.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Anonymous Coward]

" Come off it - SW3 sucks. Lousy acting, poor directing - forced points"

And that goes very well with EP IV. I thought ep I pretty much sucked. Ep. II was not too good either. But this one is right on par with the original trilogy. Not a masterpiece, but solid, good Star Wars action. The humor reminded me of original trilogy too.
Think about it, he got even the unconvincing love scenes right, in the cheesy spirit of New Hope. Watching those clumsy scenes made me felt a bit uneasy, but also like "oh yeah, this is Lucas. This is exactly the Stuff from the original trilogy. It's bad, just the way it should be."

Acting, well of course Anakin and Padme were not that good, but I enjoyed Palpatine. Mcgregor as Ben did a good job too. Ben was cheerful if a bit dull character and seemed very committed to Jedi discipline. I think Mcgregor was on the same lines, and did pretty good job.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Other issues are more important.

Yeah like the fact that the movie totally sucked.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[evilviper]

The plot wasn't one sixth of a story, but a near-direct reuse of the plot from "The Hidden Fortress".

I've seen "The Hidden Fortress". I certainly can't find the slightest similarities between it and "Star Wars". There was a princess involved, but even that was completely different between the two.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugly green thing fucking a fair maiden. Great! I can't wait to see it.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[AndroidCat]

If I were an evil Sith Lord, I'd have Sith organized blood drives. Coffee, tea, jelly doughnuts, you name it. Good PR, and there'd be incentives for people found with certain rare factors...

Then I'd figure why I couldn't just breed a batch of them in a vat (maybe surrounded by Ymlessari-whatsits). I'd also work on a limited antibiotic that quickly kills them in a person, so I could slip it into Count Dorko's tea the next time he gives me some lip.

I wonder if you can catch the Force from a dirty toilet seat?

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Themes

IV-VI - the universe is a vast mysterious place of good vs evil

I-III - the universe is full of plasticy characters (now available at your local toy store) and also trinkets are fun

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[SillyNickName4me]

I bet that this is why Yoda says in ROTJ that there is another one besides Luke whom could be trained?

If there was no heritage involved, how could he know that Leia could be teained? and why would she be basicly the only alternative?

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, you would does

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[blincoln]

Hate to burst your bubble, but that's utter crap. It's Lucas Revisionism at its worst. The original Star Wars was a stand alone movie. Period. It didn't even have the "Episode IV" subtitle in the original theatrical release. The plot wasn't one sixth of a story, but a near-direct reuse of the plot from "The Hidden Fortress".

This is actually not entirely accurate.

You can read the vast majority of early drafts of the Star Wars (and its earlier incarnation, the subtly-titled "Adventures of Starkiller,") at the Jedi Bendu site.

Lucas really did have the basic outline for the story we see in Episodes I-VI created before the original Star Wars film.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[AlphaSys]

Great sig. You'll love it -- it's a way of life.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[AlphaSys]

If you follow other lore in the SW universe, it's there. Some of the official games, for example, especially JK I & II. This is not news to folks who have been following the SW franchise outside the big screen.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Brandybuck]

Lucas really did have the basic outline for the story we see in Episodes I-VI created before the original Star Wars film.

Did he really have C3PO and R2D2 in E1 to E3 and still have Obi Wan not recognize them in E4? Did he really have Jar Jar and the Gungans? Did Chewbacca really know Yoda personally? Did Anakin really kill all the younglings? Was Jango Fett always the template for the clones? How come E1, E2 and E3 directly conflict with early to middle era Lucas approved Star Wars novels?

Methinks he had, at most, a rough one-pager for a complete story arc, just so he knew where the characters were coming from.

p.s. Reading that first script from your link, it's so far removed from the Star Wars that was filmed (bureaucrats instead of droids? Luke a general? huh?), that any argument that he had a comprehensive storyline at that time for all six (nine) episodes that were filmed is completely ludicrous.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[squiggleslash]

The original Star Wars was a stand alone movie

That, presumably, would be why the earliest draft of the script was entitled "Adventures of the Starkiller, part I."

The reason "Star Wars", as it was, came across as a standalone movie was because it had to be. That's the way Lucas had to make it, because anything less would have been rejected by Hollywood. Despite this, the film has a significant unseen backstory, and doesn't wrap everything up at the end - Darth Vader escapes the exploding Death Star, and the Emperor clearly is nowhere near the action. Not to mention the fact that the film appears to be attempting to start a love story (actually two potential stories, Luke and Leia, Han and Leia) that never actually goes anywhere.

It's relatively easy to see that Lucas intended this to be the middle, not the start and finish, of a longer story. One can argue about how detailed the over all universe was when Lucas put together the original, but I have serious problems with the "Oh no, Lucas only realised it could be expanded upon when he saw how much money the first had made" theory. It may be justified cynicism, but the actually film you're talking about doesn't match up with the accusation.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh?

You are aware that "they're" is short for "they are", aren't you? And just in case you misunderstood that sentence, I've reread it with "their" (possessive) and "there" (directional), and it doesn't make sense with either. It only makes sense as "they are family" ("they're")

What am I missing?

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[TheAncientHacker]

This is the key point of David Brin's essays:

• "Star Wars" despots vs. "Star Trek" populists http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/06/15 /brin_main/
• What's wrong (and right)with "The Phantom Menace" http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/06/15 /brin_side/index.html
• A note on the Enlightenment, Romanticism and science fiction http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/06/15 /brin_note/index.html

He wrote these in salon.com back when Episode 1 came out in 1999.

It's worth noting that even though Lucas is quoted as saying, "But there's probably no better form of government than a good despot." in a New York Times interview in March 1999, apparently even he can't stomach Bush and company's rise to power.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Brandybuck]

You really are caught up in the Lucas reality distortion field, aren't you?

1) EVERY movie, novel or story has a backstory. We STILL don't know who built R2D2. We STILL don't know who Anakin's grandfather was. If Lucas came back and did Episodes -3, -2 and -1, and then claimed he always had their exact story lines in his head ever since EIV, whould you believe him? Hah!

2) Of course Darth Vader escapes at the end, that leaves room for a sequel! Duh! But it in no way implies that the *prequels* were predetermined.

3) And the biggest flaw in everyone's "Lucas had it all written down exactly on a matchbox thirty years ago" is this: Why the fsck didn't me make Episode 1 the first episode filmed? Why the heck start in the middle? That would be like MJS starting his five year B5 arc in the middle of Z'Ha'Dum. Yeah right.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Brazilian Joe]

You may have this midichlorian ratio in your blood, but you still has less midichlorian in absolute numbers than I.

In this scenario the hipothesis of Vader losing power makes sense if you think of them as nano force-batteries, or, a cluster of Sony Cell processors doing Force computations.

This way, less midichlorians means less power.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lucas switched back and forth between at least two different "threads" in all 3 of the original trilogy (4-6).

In Episode 4, Luke and Han try to rescue Leia while Obi-Wan tries to free the ship. OK, this is somewhat small compared to later ones.

In Empire, you have Luke on Dagobah, and everyone else on the cloud city.

In ROTJ, it was actually 3 towards the end of the movie. Luke on the Death Star with Vader and the Emporer, Han/Leia/etc on Endor, and Lando/etc in space attacking the death star.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anakin had his legs cut off at the knees and his arms basically at the elbows. If that was half his body mass, he would have had to looked like Popeye. Sure, he can't do some Force things via the mechanical replacements, but he can still kick ass.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[mink]

So you are saying the force is driven by hype?

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[mink]

How about when he deflects a shot from a blaster just by raising his hand?

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Moiche]

By this rationale, obese jedi would be god-like. Hmmmmm. . . . That would have been a much better movie.

I think most slashdotters who disliked ROTS (the smart ones), were thinking the same thing as they waited for the movie to end: "If Fox had (i) played Firefly sequentially in its main time slot; (ii) marketed Firefly; and (iii) not moved its time slot repeatedly, it would still be on in new episodes.

I give up. New plan. Joss Whedon makes shows in his living room with shadow puppets, sends me mpegs, and I send him money in a box.

The Millennium Falcon Cameo

[Badmovies]

Six degrees of separation my butt! From what Lucas has shown us, it is more like one or two in the "Star Wars" universe. Between the droids being around young Anakin and now the Millennium Falcon showing up, I have lost track of how many times things are tied in together. I am surprised that the Ewoks did not turn out to be Chewbacca's midget children that he never knew about.

Re:The Millennium Falcon Cameo

[iphayd]

The droids being around Anakin is natural, actually. Remeber, they are first Leia's droids in ANH. Now, why would Leia ever need a personal astromech droid with an attitude? Remember, in RotS (Star Wars:Rots, I like it :), C3PO's memory gets erased, but R2D2's does not.

I would imagine that he was given to Leia not because she needed an astromech, but rather that Obi-Wan and Yoda wanted someone who knew exactly what her father was capable of watching her. C3PO was given to her because someone needed to talk for artoo.

Re:The Millennium Falcon Cameo

[interstellar_donkey]

Pfft!

I am surprised that the Ewoks did not turn out to be Chewbacca's midget children that he never knew about.

Everyone knows the Ewoks are a race of midget wookies.

Also, if you really pay attention, you learn the following things:

Yoda is Chewbacca's father.

While technically, yes, Anikin was "conceived" by the midicholorides or whatever the heck they're called, the real reason Anikin's mom was so vague about his conception was that she was having an affair with Watto at the time.

The real reason why Jar Jar was kicked out of the secret underwater city is because he was gettin' it on with Padame, an act strictly prohibited by the Gungan. However since they're pretty much all stupid, the gungans only description for sexual miconduct is "being clumsy". Proof of this is found in Episode II's tortured romantic discussions between Skywalker and Padame when she talks about her first boyfriend, and finalized by a split second shot in Episode III when Padame shoots Jar Jar one of "those" knowing looks.

If you pay close attention to the Millennium Falcon in Episode III, you notice that it is NOT the same ship they used in Episodes IV-VI. It's actually the original TOY they released to the general public back in the early 80s. This way, Lucas and his merchindising buddies can say that they toys everyone bought back in the 80s was actually a model of the ship in Episode III, and they should all go out and buy a new Millennium Falcon if they want the REAL Ep IV-VI toy.

Episode III is also the first Star Wars where we discover that people a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away sometimes suffered from terrible gas pains. This was shown by the expressions on Palpatine's face many times in the film (at first I thought it was bad acting, but later learned it was just gas).

Re:The Millennium Falcon Cameo

[Sabalon]

Somewhere I have the novelazation of ANH written by Lucas - from a long time ago... Anyway, somewhere in there is a line C-3PO says about how he used to belong to Darth Vader.

Really should dig that out and see just what it said given the events of RotS.

Re:The Millennium Falcon Cameo

[Anonymous Coward]

I am surprised that the Ewoks did not turn out to be Chewbacca's midget children that he never knew about.

George Lucas was going to put that in, but Johnnie Cochran paid him not to.

Re:The Millennium Falcon Cameo

[Anonymous Coward]

> I am surprised that the Ewoks did not turn out to be Chewbacca's midget children that he never knew about.

In a way, they are related. On the VHS copy I have of the trilogy there is a short interview with Lucas split up among the three tapes. In the interview before ROTJ, he says that he wasn't sure the first one would be well received and that he would ever get to make the next two. He had originally planned to have Endor populated by Wookies. He liked the Wookies so much, he decided to make one the copilot of the Millenium Falcon, in case he never got to make the next two movies. Then when he did finally get to ROTJ, he had to use something else so he 'cut them in half and called them Ewoks' (approximate words, it's been a couple of weeks since I watched it).

Re:There's a good easter egg in The Phantom Menace

[kyouteki]

Wormholes. (They explain everything.)

does anyone else see this as an attempt

[krunk4ever]

to get us to watch the movie again to boost sales? the article is hosted on http://www.starwars.com/ and tells us of all the goodies we missed. the storyline and battle sequences were great and all, but i dunno if i can handle the poor acting again. maybe if they stripped away all the acting sequences and only put on the battle sequences.

yah! they should make a battle only star wars ep iii dvd. i'd so buy that!

Re:does anyone else see this as an attempt

[cr0wbar]

What sci-fi movies are you guys watching that have this amazing acting in it? The acting in the originals is sub-par, the acting in the PT is sub-par, I don't see the problem. The movies are fun, the acting is decent.

Re:does anyone else see this as an attempt

[krunk4ever]

i'm okay with keanu reeves acting in the matrix series. i'm okay with with arnold schwarzenegger's performance in the terminator movies.

like you said, sci-fi movies don't have amazing acting, but they don't have ricockulous acting that i couldn't believe even natilie portman gave. it was very painful (or maybe hilarious) to watch their acting on screen. it was so forced! it was like they were given several lines and then told to start shooting w/o any practice.

Re:does anyone else see this as an attempt

[be-fan]

There is a threshold. The acting and dialog in most good sci-fi isn't great, but at least its not bad enough to pull you out of the story.

Anyway, the acting and dialog in the originals is actually not that bad. The original was nominated for Best Picture, Best Writing, and Best Director Oscars. Mark Hamil and Carrie Fischer won Saturn Awards (a Sci-Fi/Horror award) for their roles.

Re:does anyone else see this as an attempt

[SA Stevens]

Again?

I still only saw 'Star Wars' in the theatre in 1977, and have avoided the whole mess ever since. (it was a good movie in 1977, btw.)

In Other News....

[JasontheMason]

The Energizer Bunny will be starring as Darth Rabbit in the first Star Wars episode ever to centre around an holiday.

Spoiler: as noted elsewhere in this thread, yes, the Sith Easter Eggs are indeed Darth chocolate.

On the other hand...

[EvanED]

...in Episodes 4-6, they do talk about how the force runs in Skywalker's family. So there almost has to be some genetic link since Luke and Leia were raised separately. (And doesn't Leia become some big Jedi after RotJ?)

Re:On the other hand...

[jacen_sunstrider]

Not really. She goes on to become President of the New Republic, and doesn't really learn that much about the Force during that time. She does step down eventually, and learns a bit, but she's never as strong as her brother.

So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Several American families have several generations of military officers. That state does not suggest that being a military officer is in the genetic code of these groups of people.

In the case of the Skywalker family and these American military families, upbringing (most likely) and coincidence (less likely) could explain the bias towards certain behaviors.

Re:So What?

[EvanED]

In the case of the Skywalker family and these American military families, upbringing (most likely) and coincidence (less likely) could explain the bias towards certain behaviors.

Upbringing almost *can't* have anything to do with it. The twins are separated at birth, remember?

Leia was raised by Bail Organa. While he was friendly with the Jedis, AFAIK he had no abilities himself, so he could not have given much to Leia in terms of her ability.

Obi-Wan takes Luke at the end of Episode III, but, as we all know, hands him off to Owen and Beru. While it's possible he could have had an impact before then, the transfer couldn't have taken too long as Obi-Wan wouldn't want to have kept him around. And while they had occasional contact, it couldn't have been too much. Again, he was raised by a non-Jedi family. In fact, he was raised by a family that actively tried to keep him from getting involved in anything.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Several American families have several generations of military officers. That state does not suggest that being a military officer is in the genetic code of these groups of people.

Being in the military != having a large amount of a magical power

Re:There's a good easter egg in The Phantom Menace

[eboot]

Wormholes bend time and space. Maybe it fell into one.

Easter Eggs or hidden drivel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't an Easter Egg something you have to find that is hidden behind something else and not in plain view?

It's impossible to have an "Easter egg" in a movie unless it's on DVD.

These are what you call "interesting movie facts" because they are part of the movie. The section they should be under is, "In case you missed it ..." because nothing special has to be done to "uncover" anything.

The fact that someone says "watch it" and someone else says "excuse me" doesn't mean it was Jar Jar saying it. If you listen closely Jar Jar would not say "excuse me" the way he did. He would have said, "ex-squeeza me".

But of course, true Star Wars fans and not fanboy wanna bes, would know this.

Re:Easter Eggs or hidden drivel?

[interstellar_donkey]

I thought the exact same thing about Easter Eggs. I'm not sure if there's been some change in the meaning of "Easter eggs", or if the writer misunderstood what the term meant.

Perhaps the writer was too busy inserting hyper-links willy-nilly to look up the term.

I just hope this isn't a part of a changing trend where writers start to misuse words and before you know it people just accept the missuse as normal. Like the case with emoticons. Somewhere along the line writers decided that "emoticon" was too big and confusing as a word, so they started using the word "smiley" instead. Sadly smiley caught on.

Re:Easter Eggs or hidden drivel?

[freeweed]

Somewhere along the line writers decided that "emoticon" was too big and confusing as a word, so they started using the word "smiley" instead. Sadly smiley caught on.

You got it the other way around. "Smiley" was the catch-all term for any ASCII face for ages. People didn't think it was specific enough (after all, what's a crying smiley?), and also writers didn't think it was "technical" enough. Hence, emoticon.

Kinda like how "blog" suddenly appeared, even though many of us had been blogging for years already. We just called them "personal websites".

Re:Easter Eggs or hidden drivel?

[interstellar_donkey]

Funny. Back in 80s/early 90s, everyone I knew from BBS systems and IRC called them emoticons. It wasn't until the mid 90s that I even heard the word "Smiley" uttered.

And I do have an "online journal", which is seperate from my "personal website". I figured Blog was just another one of those terms used by writers who figured "online journal" sounded too technical.

(personally, I hate the term "blog" too. The word brings about images of obese women wearing swimming suits).

Tarkin?

[Cyno01]

Anybody else notice (Grand Moff yet?) Tarkin standing to the left of Vader and The Emporer in the last shot where they're looking at the Death Star Prototype? Also, no one's ever had an answer for this, whats Capt. Antilles (of the Tantive IV, in both III and IV) relation to Wedge?

Re:Tarkin?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought I was the only one! I mean, when a Star Wars site didn't pick up on it, you being to wonder about your own sanity...

Your post was nice gratification =)

My guess is Capt. Antillies is Wedge's father. Wedge was a childhood friend of Luke, so it couldn't have been Wedge himself...

Re:Tarkin?

[omahajim]

Peter Cushing died in 1994. Wonder who they found as a semi-lookalike? The profile and hollow face are unmistakable but you get the feeling Lucas purposely had him walking away to the left so they could avoid having to actually give him dialog (so we wouldn't notice it wasn't Cushing). Or something like that.

Re:Tarkin?

[cowboy_ein]

whats Capt. Antilles (of the Tantive IV, in both III and IV) relation to Wedge?

No relation.

Re:Tarkin?

[Anonymous Coward]

Australian actor, Wayne Pygram - who was in Farscape, amongst other things...

Re:Tarkin?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I remember correctly, I read somewhere that the two are unrelated. However, that would have been in one of the novels and not Lucas... Though, I think the novels have more weight then the movies.

Re:Tarkin?

[The Angry Mick]

Also, no one's ever had an answer for this, whats Capt. Antilles (of the Tantive IV, in both III and IV) relation to Wedge?

I just assumed that he was Wedge's dad. In Ep. 4 Wedge looks to be about the same age as Luke.

sexy, blue rabbity thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't mind about easter eggs, but I want my special blue-tall-and-armed "rabbit" back: the female twilek jedi master (and general, of course) Aayla Secura (played in the movies by the production assistant Amy Allen, iirc).

Part of her charm is of course because she's pretty and scantly clad, anyway Aayla character itself seemed very promising to me , so
SPOILERS WARNING
SPOILERS WARNING
SPOILERS WARNING
SPOILERS WARNING
SPOILERS WARNING
SPOILERS WARNING
I was sorry to see her fate confirmed (and anyway she was on screen for.. about 3 seconds maybe?)

any hope to see her resurrected in the tv series?

It would be nice, especially because Quin afaik survives....

Lucas didn't even write "Empire"

[Artifice_Eternity]

He came up with the broad story, but the actual script was the last major work written by Leigh Brackett, an amazing sci-fi, screenplay, and crime writer from the Golden Age of American film and science fiction.

It's you!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's you! You're that guy that talks loudly in the theatre. ;-)

Just kidding. I lean over and say stuff too, but I limit myself to three or four times during a movie and say it right next to my buddy's ear. He's disturbed, of course, but the rest of the audience is fine and dandy.

Re:It's you!

[FosterKanig]

Of course he's disturbed. You shouldn't use so much tongue.

Is Lucas sure this is the Millenium Falcon?

[Edmund Blackadder]

I mean, did he check the serial numbers?

Rodents of Unsual Size?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think they exist.

Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm refusing to call anything but the films made in 1977, 1980, and 1983 'starwars' movies. This includes the 're-edits'.

Only the original 3 films count in my book. George Lucas, RIP.

You are sooooo cool! Get 'em, Comic Book Guy!

what about missing Samuel Jackson Quotes?

[multi-flavor-geek]

Once you go to the Dark Side, you never come back.
No, I didn't see a sign here that said 'Dead Jedi Starage'
Why shit Yoda, that's all you had to say
Ok, I'm spent, so please post more, have fun, he he

Re:what about missing Samuel Jackson Quotes?

[Anonymous Coward]

chewbaca-burgers...the cornerstone of any nutritious breakfast...mmmmm, these are damn tasty...I can't hardly get chewbaca anymore...my girfriend's a vegetarian, which pretty much makes me one, too...hey Vincent, want a bite of Chewy?...

Re:what about missing Samuel Jackson Quotes?

[AlphaSys]

Windu: What does Sidious look like?
Dooku: Hutt?
Windu: What country you from?
Dooku: Hutt?
Windu: Hutt ain't no country I ever heard of! They speak English in Hutt?
Dooku: Hutt?
Windu: ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER! DO-YOU-SPEAK-IT?
Dooku: Yes!
Windu: Then you know what I'm saying!
Dooku: Yes!
Windu: Describe what Sidious looks like!
Dooku: Hutt, I-?
Windu: [pointing his sabre] Say Hutt again. SAY Hutt AGAIN. I dare you, I double dare you, motherfucker. Say Hutt one more goddamn time.
Dooku: He's p-p-pale...
Windu: Go on.
Dooku: He's bald...
Windu: Does he look like a bitch?
Dooku: Hutt?

Re:what about missing Samuel Jackson Quotes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anakin: Don't kill him.
Windu: He's too dangerous to be left alive!
Anakin: You think he deserves to die?
Windu: Yes, he deserves to die and I hope he BURNS IN HELL!!

Someone failed Bio

[scapermoya]

mitochondria are tiny sub-cellular organelles that reside in every living cell in the human body. They are the location of the 'electron transport chain', where various chemicals are converted to ATP, the most basic of all chemical energy carriers in the human (and other animal/plant organisms) body.

Midichlorians are exclusively in the Star Wars universe, and a 'count' of them determined one's affinity for feeling, interacting with, and manipulating omnipresent Force. In the original triology, there is no bureaucratic order of Jedi, so midichlorian counts were not performed. In the Star Wars universe, every living thing has SOME midichlorians, but only those with a high enough number had the abilities necessary to complete the training to become a Jedi Knight. This is similar to certain people not having the innate ability to compete in the Olympics. Everyone alive can interact with the Force to an extent, but only those born with enough midichlorians and trained properly could ever be Jedi Knights. There is no discontinuity between the two trilogies because the Jedi order didn't exist as an entity that actively sought and trained younglings with the proper credentials.

Saying the Jedi order in the I-III is 'snobby group' is like saying the U.S. Olympic Team is elitist.

There was no toggle switch.

[jasonhamilton]

You have to keep in mind he killed another Jedi. Once he decided that he would do what it took to save her, there was no turning back. The Jedi wouldn't accept him back after killing their own and betraying them. The fate of his wife depended on his actions and once he went down the side of the dark side....

Re: Sarcasm Thread

[lullabud]

I'm almost positive that sarcasm is multi-threaded. Anybody who found the SWE3 easter egg I'm referring to will know exactly what I'm talking about. *wink wink*

This just in!

[lullabud]

Lucasfilm has just released a statement informing us that it's not too late to see it a FOURTH or FIFTH time! Get your original Lucasfilm Starwars: Revenge of the Sith easter eggs while you still can, because they won't last long! A whole new round of easter eggs is lined up for each of the seven DVD installments that will be released over the next 20 years! That's right! These film-only easter eggs will not be sold in stores! Get yours TODAY!

Back in my day

[Anonymous Coward]

These things people call easter eggs were called "detail".

Come see the Mona Lisa, now with Easter Egg guide!!!

Towards the end...

[artemis67]

I actually found myself in tears when I saw the Gungan. "Jar Jar, please... I beg of you... please say something to save this movie!"

Sigh... the destruction of my childhood memories is complete.

ROUS

[Webs 101]

I believe the plural as spoken in the movie is ROUSes.

Re:huh? Han bypassed the middle man in the race...

[Chalupa]

If I read correctly, and I think I read it on this site, the Kessel Run was a smuggling race.
Somewhere along the route, you had to stop somewhere and deal with a "middleman" of some sort. Han reportedly figured out a way to bypass this middleman, therefore being able to boast that he finished the race in twelve parsecs.

If at first you don't succeed, sky diving is not for you.

Chalupa

Actually...

[artemis67]

I was trying very hard not to look at the cringe-inducing scenes of Anakin and Padme.

Re:Actually...

[rowanxmas]

go see "Life as a House". He is actually quite good in that.

Re:Actually...

[artemis67]

Was he the house? I could see that, because being wooden seems to be what he does best. (Ba dum bum)

Sidius did NOT want Luke as a new apprentice!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"However, when he lost his arms and legs, he lost nearly half his body mass and thus his midichlorian count fell by half. Thus he went from being more powerful than Darth Sideous to being maybe 80% as powerful. Still strong, but not exactly as powerful as Sideous would like. Thus, Sideous sought a replacement in Luke.
"

This is complete and utter bullshit.

Why? Because Sidius wouldn't have attempted to rebuild the damaged Anakin knowing that he was useless. He didn't seek Luke as a replacement. Maybe you didn't catch it in Empire when Sidius wanted Darth to KILL skywalker, not join the sith. As a matter of fact, it was Darth VADER who convinced the emperor to spare Luke so that he could be transformed to the Dark Side.

As well, Sidius (In Jedi) was going to KILL Luke! So what the hell are you talking about ?

Fanboy alert! Geez

Hardly a Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Redundant, maybe, but not a troll . . .

Antilles

[FriendOfBagu]

Also, no one's ever had an answer for this, whats Capt. Antilles (of the Tantive IV, in both III and IV) relation to Wedge?

I used to think that Capt. Antilles and Wedge Antilles might be the same person, but I don't think Wedge is old enough to already be a captain before Luke was born.

Come to think of it, it's a long time between episodes III and IV and Capt. Antilles never gets promoted. Poor guy.

Re:Antilles

[Star_Gazer]

Maybe he is suffering from the Kirk-Syndrome? Never wanting to be promoted from the center chair .

you do not know the power of the sith easter eggs

[Anonymous Coward]

sith easter eggs will finally have their revenge!

Another Eeaster Egg!

[Anonymous Coward]

IF you look carefully, at the end of the movie you'll see Darth Vader!!!

Re:Another Eeaster Egg!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's nothing. If you look really close you'll see c3p0 and r2d2. They're in a few shots.

Senile Yoda

[Pseudonymus Bosch]

Yoda was wise in Episode V, but he acted foolishly in Episodes II and III. Of course that makes sense,

Interesting. Can somebody explain why Yoda is serious in the Old Republic and playful and infantile / senile in the Empire? And what did he do with his laser?

Re:Senile Yoda

[Squid]

Can somebody explain why Yoda is serious in the Old Republic and playful and infantile / senile in the Empire?

He's trying to test Luke's patience (and Luke fails the test: "I cannot teach him, the boy has no patience.") After that, Yoda is dead serious the rest of the film, and only attempts to be funny once in Return of the Jedi ("when 900 years old you reach, look as good you will not").

And what did he do with his laser?

His lightsaber? I think I saw it get dropped during the battle with Palpatine in the big Senate room. I suppose Yoda could have used the Force to retrieve it, but he was probably in a hurry - or figured, in exile, he would not need it.

Besides, when Luke comes around looking for a "great warrior" the last thing Yoda would have wanted to do was break out the lightsaber and show Luke a few cool moves. Luke was stuck in a mindset of expecting Jedi to just be saber-wielding killing machines, something Yoda probably wanted to correct. Seeing Yoda using a lightsaber would only have convinced Luke that the lightsaber makes the Jedi, and he'd have ignored or misinterpreted all the lessons after that.

Commander Cody

[chrispl]

Did anyone else hear Yoda call one of the clone troopers "Commander Cody"? I think this is a reference to the old Commander Cody sci-fi serials, which Lucas says partly inspired him to go into sci-fi like Star Wars.

You can see quite a few episodes of this serial in the early Mystery Science Theatre 3000 episodes such as "Commander Cody and the Radar Men from the Moon".

Crossovers are fun : )

[Scrameustache]

Did anyone else feel the scene where Yoda leaves Kashyyyk was entirely reminiscent of the last scene in ET? Even Yoda's little pod looked a lot like ET's ship to me. I could even swear I heard the ET theme playing in the background.

You are not alone.

Remember, in ET, it's halloween and ET sees a kid in a Yoda mask and gets all excited, saying "Home! Hoooome!"... and the reciprocal ETs in one of ep1's Galactic Senate scenes.

Damn your sudden but inevitable betrayal!

[Scrameustache]

As the Hollywood Reporter puts it, "The end of the "Star Wars" movies leaves a gaping hole in the galaxy of geekdom. And it begs the larger question: Is the era of the superfan over? No longer is there any variation of "Star Trek" on TV. The Grateful Dead essentially passed with Jerry Garcia, and even Phish is done now. The seminal pop-cult experience may be a thing of the past."

I'm shopping for a Brown Coat to wear to the movies on september 30th...
I think I'll wear an hawaian shirt with it ;-)

Not According to Wired

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll have to go back and re-watch Ep. IV to see who's correct. But Wired reports that Leia is held in cell# 2187, which is a reference to a 1963 film, 21-87, that influenced Lucas.

Footage

[Anonymous Coward]

I read all the comments and didn't see one explaining where the guy got the stills for his website.
> Any clues??

Help me, Obiwan...

[Anonymous Coward]

...you're my only hope...

I have 2 cinnamon roles stuck to the sides of my head...

Re:Help me, Obiwan...

[Anonymous Coward]

...I mean rolls...

Like the STUPID tarzan soundbite?

[zapp]

... during the wookie battle scene?

I'm sorry, but that was simply stupid, and an insult to the whole series.

Re:Like the STUPID tarzan soundbite?

[AlphaSys]

Got to agree. I wondered if I imagined it; no one else around me seemed to notice and I haven't seen any posts about it. Yep, that was WAY over the top.

Re:news?

[UserGoogol]

Perhaps not, but it's "for nerds," and that's what Slashdot is all about.

Well, damn...

[Harker]

I guess I should hang up my hat as a Star Wars fan, despite the fact that I actually enjoyed all the movies (yes, even the ewoks).

Most of the easter eggs here went way over my head. Never heard about most of it. :/

wishful thinking

[greggman]

> enough to send a warm fuzzy through the hearts of original trilogy fans.

The only thing that would send a warm fuzzy through the heart of this original trilogy fan is a time machine keep Lucus out of it and have someone good acutally have made ep 1-3

cool...

[Anonymous Coward]

My favourite part was where Spock and McCoy were seen in the sickbay with Janeway and Lt. O'Reilly....

Oh i dunno.

[/dev/trash]

At my job I have access to movie listings and 9 times out of 10, when I pulled up the megaplexes 14 or 16, there would be 4 movies playing this weekend. Three films and then Star Wars on the remaining screens.

Force Pull them as they fall?

[Wooky_linuxer]

Of course, they can't do that... huh.. since it's disallowed by the midiclhorians. Man, that was close.

Lucas cameo?

[spongman]

did anyone notice that the voice of the medic droid that told obi-wan that padme was going to have twins sounded alot like George Lucas?

Antilles is a common name in the SW universe

[Augusto]

It's like Johnson, or Williams.

http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/wedgean tilles/?id=bts

Although an uncommon man, Wedge has a common name. A number of characters in Star Wars stories have had the last name "Antilles," but very few of them are related. Interestingly enough, in the early draft scripts of Star Wars, Wedge was a young human pilot named "Chewie."

Damn!

[Cyno01]

Now that i think about it, theres a definit resemblance, i assumed it was just CG. Nice bit of trivia there.

Biggs, not Wedge.

[Cyno01]

Biggs Darklighter was lukes childhood friend on tatooine. Wedge was corellian, and IIRC, born and raised in a well known military family, hence the confusion about a relation with the captain of the Tantive IV.

Speaking of that line...

[Tom Veil]

Obi-Wan: "Only the Sith see things in absolutes".

Yep, only the Sith. No one else. You're either a Sith who sees things in absolutes, or you're not, and there's no middle ground.

So when did Obi-Wan become a Sith?

How Ben really scared away the Sand People

[AndroidCat]

Going back to Episode IV, when Luke gets in-yer-faced and beat-up by sand people, Ben comes along and apparently does some scary call that makes them run away for a while.

I figure what he really did was yell in some language the sand people understood: "Hey, you just beat up the son of Anakin Skywalker! If he dies, remember how pissed off he was about his mom?"

That might not be a bluff. If Vader ever found out that he now had a dead son thanks to the sand people, he might get miffed. (Miffed as in "Let me tell you about my mother," and hosing the planet with the Death Star, Jabba the Hutt be damned.)

Commando Cody: Sky Marshal of the Universe

[AndroidCat]

Maybe you mean Commando Cody, a hero of Republic movie/tv serials. (Republic, get it?)

You hippies are cute.

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll say anything at all to disagree with a true conservative american like GWB.

Thank you

[Pseudonymus Bosch]

Thank you for your insightful answer.

about time for a flamewar

[scapermoya]

bush isn't a good despot, he's a bad one

Re:about time for a flamewar

[TheAncientHacker]

Oh, I'm not sure about that. He's been pretty effective at making his, "this'd be a lot easier if it was a dictatorship - as long as I'm the dictator" quote come true. As a despot, that'd have to be considered a good thing.

Re:about time for a flamewar

[scapermoya]

I feel like I should take up the torch of Howard Zinn (not that he isn't still kicking).

Re:about time for a flamewar

[TheAncientHacker]

Go ahead. The more torchbearers the better. (Hell, I'd even settle for informed, rational torchbearers on the other side - where they tend to make torchbearing a literal thing)

No

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not like Luke or anyone else goes around in IV-VI trying to convert others into becoming Jedi. Yoda and Obi-wan already knew that Luke would have a have a high mitochlorian count and would otherwise have become a Jedi anyway. They were just trying to shake off 19 years of being a regular guy and speed train him into becoming a Jedi. The "participation depends solely on your commitment to open-mindedness" idea is an invention of wack jobs like yourself.

Lucas' films also have the view that a benevolent dictator is better than a squabbling democracy. How egalitarian is that?