Slashdot Mirror


7-Year Old Prequel Fan On ANH

Random BedHead Ed writes "It is a subject often pondered by Star Wars fans: what is it like to watch the six films in order with a fresh perspective? From the Desk of Ghent, On one of the Star Wars blog site's many journals, answers this question in a recent blog entry about the writer's 7-year old son, who recently watched A New Hope for the very first time. Some enlightening quotes: 'Look... Obi-Wan is pretending he doesn't know R2-D2,' and 'Why don't those ships need Hyperspace rings?' It's a pity the end of Empire has been spoiled."

937 comments

  1. yeah by softends · · Score: 4, Funny

    "'Why don't those ships need Hyperspace rings?'"M

    Because they didn't even exist in the past in the future in the past. DUH.

    1. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      According to the books, the fact that X-Wings and such had hyperdrive was something of a novelity, most fighters didn't, and used larger ships for long distance travel.

      An example of this is in episode 3 when they talk about the short range TIE fighter.

      In reality this makes perfect sense. Hyper drive units would add a lot of bulk to a combat fighter. Yet add nothing to it's abilty to actually fight in comabat.

      So keeping the Hyper Drive unit seperate would be a simple way to increase combat performance.

      -------
      I would create an account but after 10 attempts to find a user name that isn't taken...

    2. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they didn't even exist in the past in the future in the past.

      This sounds like a case for Dr Dan Streetmentioner

    3. Re:yeah by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except all rebel fighters have them because they cannot count on capital ships, which the empire pretty much monopolizes. The miniaturized hyperdrive is what gave the rebellion a fighting chance to topple the empire.

      --
      Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
    4. Re:yeah by jbplou · · Score: 1

      Perhaps technology advanced so they could put the hyperdrive internal to the fighters. Not to sound like to much of a nerd but that is what there tech specs show.

    5. Re:yeah by debilo · · Score: 3, Funny

      I've had a post go from +5 insightful to 0 flamebait in 6 hours. The moderation system is broken.

      True. How did it get 5, Insightful in the first place?

    6. Re:yeah by SamThePondScum · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can't do hit and run if you can't run, right? :)

      The hyperdrive seems more important for getting the hell out of Dodge than getting to Dodge in the first place.

      Further, the blog presumes/suggests that you should watch the movies as Episode I thru VI. IMO, the proper order of watching these films is:

      1. IV
      2. V
      3. VI
      4. I
      5. II
      6. III
      7. IV
      8. V
      9. VI

      It has often been said that the true story of Star Wars is the rise, fall, and redemption of Darth Vader. This is certaintly true--from a certain point of view--but you can't even guess at that until at least the end of The Empire Strikes Back, when The Big Secret is revealed, and Darth Vadar becomes more than just a Very Bad Guy.

      Instead, by watching the movies in the above order, 1-3 works on the obvious level: the rise of Luke Skywalker, farm boy, to Luke Skywalker, Jedi Knight and hero of the New Republic, and true carrier of Skywalker honor. Then, watching 4-6 (i.e. episodes I-III), you see the almost-rise of A. Skywalker, who dramatically fails to live up to everyone's hopes, and instead becomes Darth Vadar, Dark Lord of the Sith. Then, you can watch 7-9 (i.e. episodes IV - VI) again, with the further understanding of just who this Darth Vadar guy is, what he's all about, and just how far he has fallen, for the full the Fall and Redemption story.

      Further, the above order preserves all the major surprises and plot twists. The only downside, IMO, is that the plot holes are more obvious, even discounting that you watch 3 of the movies twice (and therefor are more likely to notice them).

      --
      -- PondScum, SamThe
    7. Re:yeah by Frodo+Crockett · · Score: 1

      So keeping the Hyper Drive unit seperate would be a simple way to increase combat performance.

      Yes, that really helped the Tie fighters!

      --
      "The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network
    8. Re:yeah by NoData · · Score: 4, Funny

      In reality this makes perfect sense.

      Hahahahah. Truly, Friday night Slashdot is the purest form of Slashdot.

    9. Re:yeah by orn · · Score: 1

      You post misses something.

      Anikin is the prophesied ender of the Sith - which he does. The Jedis just got the time frame wrong. He ends the sith - it just takes many more years and his own son about to be killed by the emperor to do it. (Of course, that begs the question: surely the Sith trained others?)

      --
      1. 2.
    10. Re:yeah by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      surely the Sith trained others

      According to Extended Universe, yes. Luke even has a Sith girlfriend, Mara Jade. But that seems to contradict Yoda's "Only two there are, a master and an apprentice"--at no point were Vader or Palpatine able to train more apprentices if they followed that rule.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    11. Re:yeah by Drakin · · Score: 1

      Actually, Mara Jade wasn't Sith. She was simply one of the Emperor's Hands. A glorified messanger really.

      She wasn't particuarly well trained in the use of the force.

    12. Re:yeah by BTWR · · Score: 1
      at no point were Vader or Palpatine able to train more apprentices if they followed that rule

      This assumes that during the 25 years between end of ep3 and end of ep6 you still consider Vader to be Palpatine's apprentice. A Jedi is a padawan (apprentice) and then is graduated to a full Jedi Knight. But, Obi-Wan would still call Yoda "Master Yoda" and Vader still says "What is thy bidding, Master?"

      Just a guess...

    13. Re:yeah by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      No, the rule is that there's one master and one apprentice. There can't be two Sith Masters. The only chance for Vader to advance is to off Palpatine. That's how the Sith work.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    14. Re:yeah by jcenters · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The prophesy never said he was to end the Sith. That was only how the Jedi interpreted it.

      The Chosen One was to be born of the force, in order to balance the force.

      At the end of Episode III, Anakin does this. When all is said and done, there are two Jedi (Yoda and Obi-Wan) and two Sith (Palpatine and Vader).

      So, he DID balance the force and fulfilled the prophesy, it's just that the Jedi were too full of themselves to realize what "balance" means.

      --

      vi ~/.emacs

    15. Re:yeah by wwest4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What'll really bake your noodle is if you think about how Anakin was able to finally make the correct choice after a long string of missed opportunities. It was by the same avenue that got him there: attachment to others, and the inability to let something go (or fry, in Luke's case). The same tendency that tempts him to the dark side provides him a path back to redemption. I think Lucas framed it as Vader selflessly sacrificing himself to save Luke... but even while Luke does embody what's left of the light side and choosing him over the Emperor ultimately saves the galaxy, the choice isn't really textbook altruism by any stretch.

      The idea re: Sith apprentices is that the Sith can't afford to indoctrinate too many powerful force users into the fabulous world of back-stabbing, manipulation, and galactic domination. They desire a monopoly on power. So they stick to a safe arrangement of one boss and one supplicant (who essentially serves as the slave in an active-active redundant system of e-vil). In that way, and only in that way, is the fear of losing power under control. You keep your apprentice busy, keep one eye on him, and the other on everything else. Or something like that.

    16. Re:yeah by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the scores:

      50% Insightful
      20% Interesting
      20% Informative

      Guess thats Slashdot math.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    17. Re:yeah by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      But she was trained in the dark side. Forgive me for exaggerating.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    18. Re:yeah by SamThePondScum · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yar, I was just hitting some high points.

      For instance, Annie brings balance to the force by killing all the Jedi, except 1 Master (Yoda) and 1 apprentice (Obi Wan) for the Light side, and 1 Master (the Emperor) and 1 apprentice (Darth Vadar) for the Dark side. If you buy that--that the two sides of the Force are balanced in some numerical sense--then note further that Yoda barely lost to the Emperor and Obi Wan barely beat Darth Vadar. Further, after Yoda dies, Luke is able to beat Darth Vadar... (but not the Emperor, so maybe I'm full of it ;) ).

      --
      -- PondScum, SamThe
    19. Re:yeah by coldblooded · · Score: 1

      This assumes that during the 25 years between end of ep3 and end of ep6 you still consider Vader to be Palpatine's apprentice. A Jedi is a padawan (apprentice) and then is graduated to a full Jedi Knight. But, Obi-Wan would still call Yoda "Master Yoda" and Vader still says "What is thy bidding, Master?" Yes Vader continues to be Palpatines apprentice so to speak. The Sith follow different customs than the Jedi. They too have several different levels, but only ONE of them is Master, In order for a Sith to become the master he must destroy his Master or take his place after he just dies from whatever reason. Also the way the Jedi use "Master" to refer to other Jedi can be confusing but the way I see it, it can be used in different meanings. A padawan calls the Jedi who trains him "Master" even if his trainer does not have the rank of Jedi Master, and it is used obviously when a Jedi has attained the rank of Master, e.g. Master Yoda, Master Kenobi, etc. If you have say 2 Jedi Masters who are peers (one did not train the other) and they are speaking privately they address each others as peers usually (without the title) also if the conditions are more informal.. It's simply a title and it's their custom to address others with it out of respect.

    20. Re:yeah by coldblooded · · Score: 1

      This assumes that during the 25 years between end of ep3 and end of ep6 you still consider Vader to be Palpatine's apprentice. A Jedi is a padawan (apprentice) and then is graduated to a full Jedi Knight. But, Obi-Wan would still call Yoda "Master Yoda" and Vader still says "What is thy bidding, Master?"

      Yes Vader continues to be Palpatines apprentice so to speak. The Sith follow different customs than the Jedi. They too have several different levels, but only ONE of them is Master, In order for a Sith to become the master he must destroy his Master or take his place after he just dies from whatever reason. Also the way the Jedi use "Master" to refer to other Jedi can be confusing but the way I see it, it can be used in different meanings. A padawan calls the Jedi who trains him "Master" even if his trainer does not have the rank of Jedi Master, and it is used obviously when a Jedi has attained the rank of Master, e.g. Master Yoda, Master Kenobi, etc. If you have say 2 Jedi Masters who are peers (one did not train the other) and they are speaking privately they address each others as peers usually (without the title) also if the conditions are more informal.. It's simply a title and it's their custom to address others with it out of respect.

    21. Re:yeah by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      Not being a flamer or other (and this is all in 'fun') but I thought that Anakin was 'The Chosen One' for those Dog people he saved in Clone Wars Vol 2.

      Their prophecy forsaw the events of the one armed god freeing the males from enslavement.

      What Mace Windu said in Ep III about the point of view made that clear to me, not to bring the Sith to power. Anakin is good (as in skill) but all the Emperor needed was a gopher and Asaaj Ventress could have handled what Anakin did in Ep III as an apprentice. It just wouldn't have made as compelling a story as it did.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    22. Re:yeah by wwest4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Sith represent an imbalance. Power and control aren't supposed to be in one hand... that disturbs the natural equilibrium represented by the whole omnipresent Force thing. Lucas likened it to a cancer that eats away at the host and eventually killing it. Through I, II, and III the dark side is chipping away at that equilibrium.

      It's destined to end, per the prophesy, but it is up to Anakin how he gets there. It's actually a lot like Tolkien's Silmarillion. The world is created through the music of Illuvatar, and Melkor's desire to create and control represent discord... a cacophony against the song of Illuvatar. Melkor is defeated temporarily, but he is destined to return and be ultimately defeated (like the Sith, who re-emerge after a long time underground).

    23. Re:yeah by wmspringer · · Score: 1

      Did he say "only" or "always"? I heard it as "always two there are"...that doesn't seem to preclude more, just that there's at least 2 (which doesn't really make sense....what happens if the master does before the apprentice is trained?)

    24. Re:yeah by coldblooded · · Score: 1

      Anikin is the prophesied ender of the Sith - which he does. The Jedis just got the time frame wrong. He ends the sith - it just takes many more years and his own son about to be killed by the emperor to do it. (Of course, that begs the question: surely the Sith trained others?)
      Disregarding the EU books after episode 6. I don't think they would have trained anybody else to use the Force. The reason they are 2 , a master and apprentice is becuase they are self destructive and training others to use the force would be dangerous for them, Vader is plotting since Episode 3 to kill Palpatine. With all but 2 Jedi living and commanding an Army , why would they need to train others? Its not like their plan was to destroy the Jedi and start Sith franchises.

    25. Re:yeah by wwest4 · · Score: 1

      I think Palpatine gets wind of Anakin being the chosen one, and he realizes that his chances of victory and his own survival depend on Anakin's decisions. "The Jedi need you, Anakin; more than you know." So he aims to influence those decisions. When things come to a head, he has no choice but to cash in on his work -- to go for it and try to recruit the boy -- or the Jedi will find the Sith and destroy him. When confronted with this decision (like many other crucual decisions before it), Anakin chooses poorly, and the rest is Star Wars history.

    26. Re:yeah by BlueFashoo · · Score: 1

      Actually the prophesy is that Anakin will bring balance to the force. All the Jedi thought that meant he would destroy the Sith, but I think it meant that he was supposed to destroy the Jedi. At the end of Ep. III, the only force users alive are Yoda, Kenobi, Vader, and Palpatine. 2 Sith and 2 Jedi. And so the prophesy was fulfilled, though not as the Jedi expected.

      --
      Nice Marmot
    27. Re:yeah by coldblooded · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think you are partly right. But I don't think the balance was in numbers so to speak, both Jedi and Sith are extremes. The real balance is embodied in Luke, Anakin goes to both extremes and meets luke halfway. Anakin I believe brings balance in the form Luke, by destroying both Jedi and Sith and ultimately open the way for a new breed of Jedi who see the Force as a whole, not a good light side and an evil dark side. The force is niether good noir evil, the Jedi and Sith made that distinction, each one believing the other is evil, these are people who are evil not the Force. Both factions are largely dehumanized, one are selfish and care more about themselves and indivuals than for the greater good, the other are selfless, they don't care about themselves they only care for others and are detached from most of the basic human emotions, take Obi-Wan, he is more than willing to sacrifice people in order to perform his "duty" and for the great good. I think the point is that anything taken to Extremes is bad, even if they are well intended like the Jedi.

    28. Re:yeah by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      I like your take better but I still think that Anakin was the Chosen one for the dog people and the Jedi and Sith both saw it wrong.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    29. Re:yeah by C0vardeAn0nim0 · · Score: 1

      it helped so much that the only survivors of the batle of yavin were two x-wings, one y-wing and the millenium falcon, the later came only when the battle was almost over and was the one who saved the day. if it wasnt for han solo and chewbacca to show up and fire a few shots on lord vaders fighter, the rebelion wouldve lost and hoth destroyed.

      the real function of the TIEs is to atack in group bigger ships like the millenium falcon and when engaging small fighters like the x-wings, to keep them trapped inside the range of a capital ships guns.

      in yavin they did their job quite well.

      --
      What ? Me, worry ?
    30. Re:yeah by tha_mink · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not to mention the fucking *CONTENT*

      Jesus fucking christ...I like computers and all but I didn't sign up for this Star Wars freak shit.

      Kill me.

      --
      You'll have that sometimes...
    31. Re:yeah by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      Luke is really the balance. Yoda makes the same choice with Luke that he did with Anakin (regarding Padame), telling him to let them die as it is the way of things. Luke has feelings for his friends, when they are in danger and will not heed the advice (neither did Anakin). Jedi are typically (inhumanly) unfeeling. Jedi dont wear black, but Luke does. Jedi dont use dark force powers, but Luke does. Anakin was destined to BRING balance to the force...and he did, in the form of Luke.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    32. Re:yeah by bt3 · · Score: 1, Funny

      hahaha, yeah, that cracked me up in the first two movies.

      "Anakin will bring balance to the force"

      Lessee, there are like ten zillion Jedi and two Sith.

      I guess they don't teach any math at the Jedi Academy.

    33. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Jedi maintain balance of the force by having complete control over it. The presence of Sith always upsets this balance. Thus Anakin ultimately brings balance to the force by destroying the Emperor (and himself) in Episode VI. Thus only Jedi (Luke) remain, the balance has been restored, and the prophesy was fulfilled.

    34. Re:yeah by mixmasta · · Score: 1

      Luke uses dark force powers? please elaborate.

      --
      #6495ED - cornflower blue
    35. Re:yeah by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      Remember Attack of the Clones. Jango Fett's ship, the Slave I, had a built in hyperdrive. Sure, Slave I was much bulkier than the Jedi fighter, but it maneouvered quite nicely in the pinch, and was equipped with an impressive array of weaponry.

      Also, in the original trilogy, empire technology was pretty much a centralized deal, whereas in the prequels every Tom, Dick and Harry planetary system had their own spaceship designs. In one of those countless systems, a miniaturized hyperdrive was bound to develop.

      In a way, Slave I and the Millennium Falcon serve as technological 'missing links', as the next evolutionary step in regards to size was the fighter with hyperdrive.

      But let's all please overlook the fact that the republic had existed for thousands of years, and just when the Sith began to rule the galaxy, up pops this little ace up the sleeve, right into the hands of the rebellion. (a nod and a wink)

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    36. Re:yeah by tod_miller · · Score: 1

      Yeah but he goes good at the end again... so while I agree he balances to the 2-2 you said, padme also states 'there is still good in him' and yeah, you know, at the end of the end.

      I just wonder where all the cool attack droids go.

      Maybe rolling around sheild generators could be done in them 'long time ago' early films.

      Shit I sound like a star wars geek, I am not, although I did have the millenium falcon as a kid, and I can proudly say it is at the bottom of a land fill. muahaha.

      --
      #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
    37. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Choking the Gamorrean guard in Jabba's palace. Opening himself to his anger when he strikes at Darth Vader on the DS II.

      Though the reality is that he isn't the only one. Mace Windu used the force to crush a part of General Grievous (Star Wars Clone Wars Vol. 2) which is why he has breathing issues and seems to be limping in Ep III.

    38. Re:yeah by mrbooze · · Score: 1

      I *guarantee* there are more jedi out there post-Sith than Yoda and Obi-Wan. First, it's somewhat foreshadowed by Obi-Wan changing the "Distress signal" to alert other jedis to stay away.

      Second, and much more important, Lucas is commiting to a tv series and a clone wars cartoon that both do not feature major characters from the movies, and that take place between episodes 3 and 4.

      Conclusion: No way in hell are they making either of those shows without jedis in them. Therefore, there are other jedis, dark and light, still scattered around the galaxy.

    39. Re:yeah by Nasarius · · Score: 1
      padme also states 'there is still good in him'

      Slightly offtopic, but isn't it funny how most of the decent lines in the new trilogy are stolen from the original trilogy? Episode 3 was really shameless in this regard.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    40. Re:yeah by Nasarius · · Score: 1
      I *guarantee* there are more jedi out there post-Sith than Yoda and Obi-Wan. First, it's somewhat foreshadowed by Obi-Wan changing the "Distress signal" to alert other jedis to stay away.

      Likely, but irrelevant. Unless we're really not being told something, Vader and Palpatine hunt down the rest of those Jedi too, eventually bringing it down to 2/2. At the end of RotJ, Luke is all that's left.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    41. Re:yeah by Alric · · Score: 1

      hahahahahahahaha, indeed

    42. Re:yeah by Tab+is+on+Slashdot · · Score: 0

      But Anakin DID destroy the Sith once and for all when he kamikaze'd Palpatine at the end of ROTJ.

    43. Re:yeah by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 2, Funny

      Shit I sound like a star wars geek, I am not

      Even worse, you sound like a Starwars geek in denial.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    44. Re:yeah by garroo · · Score: 1

      In return of the Jedi, he uses his anger to defeat his father. Also, in the expanded universe books, he explores the dark side, when he is turned by a clone of the emperor.

      Much later, the Yuzhun Vong invade the Galaxy, and a revelation about the force is underway. The Jedi have turned away from part of the force, and hence, are unable to even detect this terrible enemy.

      Great book series. One can see the overlay of terrorism and radical fundamentalist religion throughout the undertones of the Vong series.

      I just wish they'd make the TV shows based on that portion of the universe, with the new jedi order.

      --
      Oh my gawd, they killed kenny's mod points!!!!
    45. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      usually people mean a 'force' choke hold - which Luke handily does entering Jabba's palace to the two guards.

    46. Re:yeah by NickHydroxide · · Score: 1

      Luke force chokes the guards on his way into Jabba's palace in Return of the Jedi. I suppose you could interpret this as a use of the dark side of the Force.

      I'm undivided as to whether it was Vader or Luke who brings balance to the Force, and thus fulfilled the prophecy. I'd probably lean towards Luke at the moment, but that really is in no way definitive.

    47. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The prophesy never said he was to end the Sith. That was only how the Jedi interpreted it.

      But he DID end the Sith. He sacrificed himself to save Luke, and killed the Emperor, thus eliminating the Sith in one fell swoop. The Jedi's interpretation proved to be quite correct, it was just their timing that was wrong.

    48. Re:yeah by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I liked having them there, since the original trilogy repeated lines a lot, too, but they really were just about the only good lines in the new trilogy.

    49. Re:yeah by jjrff · · Score: 1

      This is also alluded to in the video games that follow (at some point) after ep6. In Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast, the main charachter comes to terms with using allegedly dark and light powers to eventually come to a equilibrium within himself. In Jedi Knight: Jedi Acadamy, the main charachter from OutCast (Kyle Katarn) accopmanies the main charachter at some point and tells them that "it is not what you know, it is how you use it." This is also alluded to in the Ep3 book. Some dialogue that got whacked from the movie. Initially Ben thought each should take one of the children. Yoda disagrees saying something to the effect that people can learn discipline without training. Yoda is also told by Qui Gon, who apparently (at least in the book) is at that point in time the most powerful Jedi ever, that the Jedi were too stale and stuck, which is why they were blinded and got their ass beaten. Finally, the events after ep6 where Jedi are not taken as children, are allowed to marry etc. pretty much puts it in stone that the balance has to do with personae more than method. For example, only a "Sith would drain the life of others for power" but a Jedi from Luke's order would certainly do the same to end a fight quicker (and possibly with less bloodshed). The true definition of Sith is actually somewhat fuzzy, in the pre-prequel games all Sith Lords and their "soliders" had funked up eyes. I think this had something to do with the Sith race and line which is effectively wiped out after Vader dies.

    50. Re:yeah by Krimszon · · Score: 1

      Not only that, his son has alos seen I twice before and III twice as well. So much for the fresh start. The difficulty lies in finding a true Star Wars virgin that is old enough to say something meaningfull about these movies.

    51. Re:yeah by thulsey · · Score: 1

      Return of the Jedi, walking into Jabba's palace. He choke holds the guards and slams them into the walls -- something Darth Vader was very famous for, but you don't see Jedi doing.

    52. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God you people are lame.

      Don't you have anything better to do?

    53. Re:yeah by Paladin128 · · Score: 1

      There are supposed to be only two Sith -- with the understanding that the apprentice will eventually try to overthrow the master. The master wishes to train the apprentice well so he can take all the dangerous shit, where the apprentice wishes to grow in power. If there are multiple apprentices, they could gang up on the master.

      --
      Lex orandi, lex credendi.
    54. Re:yeah by Snaller · · Score: 1

      But are there major surpises? "I am your father" is more like bad soapopera.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    55. Re:yeah by oskard · · Score: 1

      I agree with your interpretation. It also may give light to why Obi-Wan said this ridiculous comment: "Only Sith deal in extremes." Isn't that an extreme, genius?

      --
      Sigs are for Terrorists.
    56. Re:yeah by Java+Ape · · Score: 1

      I have the mod points . . . and IT's SO tempting to mod this point flamebait. However, I suspect that would just prove the moderation system is broken!

    57. Re:yeah by alienmole · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Kill me.

      Happy to oblige. People with no imagination hardly deserve to live, anyway.

      As you draw your last breath, ponder this: why did you choose to read a discussion about Star Wars, if you're not interested in it?

    58. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, balance is not about the same amount of Sith as Jedi. There is no 'light' side to the Force, there is only the Force as it should be used (when it is in balance) and the dark side.

      Even if it were about balancing how the dark side and the rest of the Force are used, the Force is not balanced at the end of Episode III. The Dark side is easily the dominant force in the galaxy. There is no balance at all.

      Anakin destroys the Sith and brings balance to the Force in VI.

      It's simple. Read some interviews with Lucas on the subject.

    59. Re:yeah by fr2asbury · · Score: 1

      Like the line that should be the "subtitle" of the entire Star Wars Franchise:

      I have a bad feeling about this

      It's sort of a joke, but that IS the line that shows up every time. It's what made even episode I really feel like Star Wars to me.

    60. Re:yeah by Harlockjds · · Score: 1

      >Further, the above order preserves all the major surprises and plot twists.

      Only if you watch the original version of ESB. THe version on DVD assumes you already know the twist and has the emperor tell Vader this fact early in the film.

    61. Re:yeah by KingPrad · · Score: 1

      No kidding! The Jedi Council's stupidity over 'restoring the balance' made me want to scream. In the Republic there are thousands of Jedi Knights and an efficient training program. There are (we know of) a handful of dark Jedi (the Sith). Do the Jedi actually feel outnumbered and think balancing would be beneficial to them?? They are the ones horribly out of balance! How arrogant and stupid of them to see themselves as the underdogs.

      --
      Stop the Slashdot Effect! Don't read the articles!
    62. Re:yeah by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Usually, what happens is someone makes an intelligent sounding post, and it gets modded up. Later, someone replies to it and makes an intelligent sounding post that disagrees strongly with the first post. Then that post gets modded up, while the original post gets modded down. Who is actually right usually doesn't factor in at all.

    63. Re:yeah by Three+Headed+Man · · Score: 1

      I have a large number of friends who have outright refused to watch the movies. I am 18, and they are aged 17-20. It's not hard to find people untouched by it.

      --
      I'm probably at the karma cap. Mod up a funny troll instead, it lightens the mood :)
    64. Re:yeah by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      The rule of 2 really meant only 2. It was installed by Darth Bane who managed to survive the infighting among the Sith. He instaleld the rule to prevent such a thing from ever happening again.

      this does not exclude other users of the dark side of the Force, but it does exclude other Sith.

      Remember that Darth Tyranus had to die before Anakin could become the new apprentice. If what you suggest was true, he could have become the equivalent of a knight.

    65. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who do you think Vader goes around and kills during those 19 years? The Jedi's that stayed away from the temple.

    66. Re:yeah by mixmasta · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info, guys.

      I'm not sure those count as "dark force powers" though, maybe just using the force in general. Kind of a ends-justify-the-means kind of thing.

      Also, didn't yoda do that to the guards in Ep 3?

      --
      #6495ED - cornflower blue
    67. Re:yeah by AscendantOat · · Score: 1

      Here's a cool viewing order that I read here on /.: 1. IV 2. V ~~Wavy flashback lines~~ 3. I 4. II 5. III ~~Reverse wavy flashback lines~~ 6. VI Rather brilliant, I thought. Keeps the surprise in V, and you see how the saga ends last instead of partway through. Sorry, don't remember who to give credit to.

    68. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The missing 10% is flamebait (GGP posting anon, I saw the moderation message, detailing it).

      Re:yeah, posted to 7-Year Old Prequel Fan On ANH, has been moderated Flamebait (-1).

      It is currently scored Insightful (4).

    69. Re:yeah by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      According to Extended Universe, yes. Luke even has a Sith girlfriend, Mara Jade. But that seems to contradict Yoda's "Only two there are, a master and an apprentice"--at no point were Vader or Palpatine able to train more apprentices if they followed that rule.

      I really don't understand the interpretation of Yoda's statement that leads to "there are only ever two Sith in the Galaxy". The immediate and most obvious conclusion to draw from Yoda's statement, IMHO, is that you never find more than two of them in the same place at the same time.

      Ie: there's lots of pairs of Sith galavanting around the Galaxy, just never more than two together at once.

    70. Re:yeah by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Well, I misquoted, it's "always two there are: a master and an apprentice". "There are two Sith" has a relatively simple literal interpreation: at any given time, two Sith, no more, no less, exist.

      According to some more Expanded Universe history the idea of only two Sith in the galaxy started with Darth Bane, the sole survivor of an old Sith order that destroyed itself through infighting. Apparently rules like "promotion through killing your superiors" and "be an angry murderous warlord" don't lead to large, stable organizations.

      There's also the concrete fact that, in the films, there are never more than two Sith at the same time. If there are other pairs of Sith wandering around, where the hell are they? And if any pair is supposed to be "together", then why are they so far apart, with Sidious either on Naboo or Coruscant all the time, while Maul is galavanting out alone and later Tyranus being a separatist warlord across enemy lines? Really, what are all the other Sith Lords doing out there while Sidious and his apprentice plot to take over the galaxy? Even more pedantically, Yoda says to Obi-Wan in Revenge of the Sith, "Destroy the Sith we must", and proceeds to detail how they will destroy Sidious and Vader, respectively. If Yoda wants to destroy the Sith, why is he stopping at just killing two of them if there are other pairs of Sith adventuring out there?

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    71. Re:yeah by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Correction: As I know better than to be too familiar with Episode I, I now believe (from a brief googling) that the exact quote may be "Always two there are, no more, no less: a master and an apprentice". Needless to say this makes my point far more thoroughly.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    72. Re:yeah by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure, but he uses anger to defeat Vader in Death Star mkII.

    73. Re:yeah by beowulfcluster · · Score: 1

      I too thought it meant there might be lots of them, but instead of never more than two together at once, I took it to mean that if you find one there's always at least one other around. As in, they'd found and defeated one but they can't relax because at the very least his master or apprentice is still around somewhere near.

    74. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      imho, when I think of the Jedi building, I immediately think of the U.N. building. Contents: Clueless "good" people so full of their own ideas of how the world shoudl work and seem to get it wrong too often.

    75. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The red headed little orphan girl brings balance to the force? wholda thunk it?

      P.S. as far as the balance of the force goes, I suspect it is kinda like me and the other guy in the cubicle we share. The same amount of work gets done in here every day, it's just of a matter of balance of who is doing it...or not.

    76. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no difficulty at all, solved in one word: Amish

      #-$

    77. Re:yeah by kel-tor · · Score: 1

      I read the always there are 2 thing as more of a political aspect, ie there can be many sith, but only one sithlord and one sith apprentice. sorta equivalent to , there can be many politicians, but only one president and one vice president. "always there are two, a president and a vice-president"

      --

      ---

    78. Re:yeah by tod_miller · · Score: 1

      Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! ;-)

      --
      #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
    79. Re:yeah by Ohrion · · Score: 1

      Actually, those definitely DO count as Dark Force powers. Any power that directly diminishes the life of another is dark. Obviously Force Choke is not the only of the Dark Force powers that fall in that category.

  2. Welcome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    I, for one, welcome our new 7 year old Star Wars nerd overlord.

  3. You meant... by dscho · · Score: 3, Funny

    Future past future!

    1. Re:You meant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've obviously conjugated latin verbs.

  4. And from Empire Strikes Back by scolby · · Score: 5, Funny

    How did Yoda go so senile so quickly?

    1. Re:And from Empire Strikes Back by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Funny

      If your pension paid only enough to live in a slimy mud hole after living your life in top of an ivory tower, you would be senile too. The dark side of being a retired Jedi... :P

    2. Re:And from Empire Strikes Back by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On a more serious note, 20 or so years of cloaking his existence from the Emperor and Darth Vader may have taken a serious toll on him.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    3. Re:And from Empire Strikes Back by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      he was doing pretty well until 880 years old, then everything went to pot

    4. Re:And from Empire Strikes Back by prockcore · · Score: 1

      The dark side of being a retired Jedi..

      That's true. Obiwan had to work at a VW Junkyard in Yuma.

    5. Re:And from Empire Strikes Back by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 2, Funny

      You mean, 'then he turned to pot'...

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    6. Re:And from Empire Strikes Back by Hatta · · Score: 4, Funny

      If your pension paid only enough to live in a slimy mud hole after living your life in top of an ivory tower, you would be senile too. The dark side of being a retired Jedi... :P

      Don't you mean:

      If slimy mudhole after living your life in the top of an ivory tower your pension paid only enough to live in, senile you would be too"

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:And from Empire Strikes Back by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "How did Yoda go so senile so quickly?"

      He didn't seem so senile after he told Luke who he was. The impression I got was that he was playing a tard to wind Luke up. Testing his patience, so to speak. I'm not interested in defending the consistency of the prequels, but I didn't have any real qualms with Yoda.

      It is interesting thinking about Yoda's motivations now, though. Was he helping Luke to deal with his father, or was he using him to take out Vader? I hope it's the latter. I like the idea of Yoda being self centered.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    8. Re:And from Empire Strikes Back by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Forget the pot. Its all those mushrooms growing on his rear end that he's smoking. :P

    9. Re:And from Empire Strikes Back by rubycodez · · Score: 2, Funny

      .....until he was 900 years old, when sadly the Imperial Supreme Court ruled the Empire's authority to ban medicinal pot superceded any planetary laws allowing use; whereupon Yoda quickly faded away.

    10. Re:And from Empire Strikes Back by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      How did Yoda go so senile so quickly?

      With the downfall of the Jedi, they lost the ability to project Yoda in CGI form. The best they could do was recruit Jim Henson to animate a crude caricature of Yoda in a jerky, unrealistic fashion. Just be lucky he didn't go all Fraggle Rock every once in a while and get thrown across the set.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    11. Re:And from Empire Strikes Back by astromog · · Score: 1

      I think my brain just exploded.

    12. Re:And from Empire Strikes Back by Bongo+Bill · · Score: 1

      Mudhole? Slimy? His home, this is!

      --
      ...but is it art?
    13. Re:And from Empire Strikes Back by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      a. Degobah was a heavily forested planet full of living things to mask him and keep him going.

      b. "When 900 years old you reach, look as good you will not"... maybe he was over the hill

    14. Re:And from Empire Strikes Back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mud hole? Slimy? His home that was!

    15. Re:And from Empire Strikes Back by BrynM · · Score: 2, Interesting
      On a more serious note, 20 or so years of cloaking his existence from the Emperor and Darth Vader may have taken a serious toll on him.
      That explains why he was hiding on Degoba(sp?). That place was all cracked-out with the force. He would have seemed like another anomaly.
      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    16. Re:And from Empire Strikes Back by connorbd · · Score: 1

      That would certainly be consistent with the general denseness of the Jedi council, but not with what happened to Yoda in RotS. By the end of the Clone Wars, with all his communing with Qui-Gon, you would figure that Yoda would have learned to put the daily politics of the Jedi aside.

      I agree that it would make sense in a grand scheme for Yoda's motivations to be somewhat questionable. Unfortunately I don't think it's reconcilable with the black/white understanding of the Force. I could make a reasonable case that the Dark Side and the Light Side are really forces of Entropy and Creation, and the effects of the Dark Side -- madness, bodily degradation, etc -- are inherent to the entropic qualities of the Dark Side, which would make a less clear-cut Yoda far more tenable, but it isn't canon and truth be told I don't think George Lucas necessarily gave it much thought. He tweaked a lot of details, but I think the fundamental philosophy of the Force is intact from the earliest drafts of the movie. The little effort he did put into rethinking it, with midichlorians and all trying to give a scientific basis for the Force, actually made a lot of sense but was laughed out of the theatre.

    17. Re:And from Empire Strikes Back by EngMedic · · Score: 1

      Yep. I've always thought that Yoda's first encounter with Luke in episode 5 played out in a very Zen fashion. Actually, the Force syncs up nicely in a fairly general way with $EASTERN_PHILOSOPHY in general.

      --
      filter: +3. Hey, look! all the trolls went away!
    18. Re:And from Empire Strikes Back by HishamMuhammad · · Score: 1

      He didn't seem so senile after he told Luke who he was. The impression I got was that he was playing a tard to wind Luke up. Testing his patience, so to speak. I'm not interested in defending the consistency of the prequels, but I didn't have any real qualms with Yoda.

      Remember also the way he talked to the children in Episode II... "Mmmm, lost a planet, Master Obi-Wan has. How embarrassing...."

    19. Re:And from Empire Strikes Back by Tomfrh · · Score: 1

      I much prefer the old yoda, he doesnt have that icky CGI skin.

    20. Re:And from Empire Strikes Back by pegasustonans · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't you mean:

      If slimy mudhole after living your life in the top of an ivory tower your pension paid only enough to live in, senile you would be too"


      No, I think he means:

      If, after your life in the top of an ivory tower living, a slimy mudhole your pension only enough to live in paid, senile you too would be.

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    21. Re:And from Empire Strikes Back by maggot+the+shrew · · Score: 1

      It's sort of like a horiscope. You can fit it to anything, no matter how utterly innacurate the comparison.

    22. Re:And from Empire Strikes Back by julesh · · Score: 1

      I think "... senile too, you would be" works better.

    23. Re:And from Empire Strikes Back by Snaller · · Score: 1

      How did Yoda go so senile so quickly?

      If as old you be, think as well you will not.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    24. Re:And from Empire Strikes Back by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      I thought he was testing Luke by being crazy, because soon after that he says "This one has no patience".

    25. Re:And from Empire Strikes Back by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      The reason Dagoba worked so well as a hideout for Yoda is because a Sith was killed there, creating a "shadow" that would cancel out Yoda's presence. I'm not sure if it's been revealed exactly which Sith was killed there.

    26. Re:And from Empire Strikes Back by teknokracy · · Score: 1

      Come on people, he's a muppet! Of course he's a little senile and self centred. They all are.........

    27. Re:And from Empire Strikes Back by SmittyTheBold · · Score: 1

      It's more satisfying in some regards to think of it that was, but after the whole "Han shoots first" fiasco, there's no way Lucas would allow Yoda to act in a self-centered manner.

      --
      ± 29 dB
    28. Re:And from Empire Strikes Back by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Exploded, I think my brain just did.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    29. Re:And from Empire Strikes Back by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      I know it was in one of the Timothy Zahn books. It was more of a speculation from Luke that Yoda killed a dark lord there. It was never confirmed, at least in those books. I was kinda hoping that maybe Dooku was going to get killed on Dagoba, but I saw during the Clone Wars cartoon that Qui Gon Jin took Anikin to Dagoba at one point.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  5. why the new series sucks by Ubergrendle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You will never have the opportunity to relive the moment of truth at the end of Empire, or learn about the twins in Return of the Jedi. It will all be a foregone conclusion. Robbing a child of this opportunity is a heinous crime, given how much I enjoyed the original series given its original presentation.

    --
    John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    1. Re:why the new series sucks by mark-t · · Score: 2, Insightful
      There's nothing wrong with the prequels.

      But I realized back when Ep2 came out that it wasn't a good idea to watch the movies in chronological order.

      The prequels are interesting in the sense that they fill in some gaps and the backstory, but I don't recommend watching them without seeing eps 4,5, & 6 first.

    2. Re:why the new series sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Agreed. My children will see them in the proper order: 4,5,6, then 1,2,3, then 7,8,9,10,11,12...

      (Say what you will, but history will prove me right.)

    3. Re:why the new series sucks by utuk99 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was much happier with the mystery that the originals left of the past. Then again I tend to like anime, which usually pick up in the middle of a story too. Things do not have nice neat beginnings in life, why should they in movies.

    4. Re:why the new series sucks by hermit7323 · · Score: 1

      I used to agree with you, the idea of ruining that huge surprise is a bummer, but, it's more of a 'hah, they're running around in space as a family and none of them know that they're related', and when Luke finds out, you see his realization of the situation.

    5. Re:why the new series sucks by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Take a chill pill, man.

      Are you referring to spoilers such as Luke/Leias origins and the introduction of Yoda?

      You can still watch the OT before the prequels, or in my preferred order:

      1 ep4 ANH
      2 ep5 ESB
      3 ep1 TPM
      4 ep2 AOTC
      5 ep3 ROTS
      6 ep6 ROTJ

      That way your kids won't be 'robbed' of anything.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    6. Re:why the new series sucks by Vengie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      c.f. the chronicles of narnia. Anyone who reads the Magician's Nephew first ought to be shot.

      --
      When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
    7. Re:why the new series sucks by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Robbing a child of this opportunity is a heinous crime

      "Robbing"? "Heinous crime"? Are you talking about taking away a child's school education or taking away some minor plot twists in a sci-fi movie?

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    8. Re:why the new series sucks by cheaphomemadeacid · · Score: 1

      yeah you should report George Lucas to Human Rights Watch or sumthing :)

    9. Re:why the new series sucks by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Actually Magician's Nephew makes a fine 2nd book to read, even though it wasn't the 2nd one actually written.

    10. Re:why the new series sucks by JustOK · · Score: 1

      what? what about the special editions? u r 2 kreewl

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    11. Re:why the new series sucks by h3llfish · · Score: 1

      All true, but isn't there a good chance that the eventual redemption of Vader means more, since the kid watched the little fella grow up? Isn't Vader now a much more three dimensional character for the whole original trilogy now? I can understand you point, but there are also benefits to doing it the other way. Shawn

    12. Re:why the new series sucks by iocat · · Score: 2, Informative

      It kills me that the box sets now label Magician's Nephew #1. My son will read them in the proper order.

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    13. Re:why the new series sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The movie is 20 years old. You can't expect a whole culture which is enamored with this series to freak about "SPOILERS!" for two decades. "Luke, I'm your father" is totally ingrained in our culture. If your kid hasn't figured it out yet, you need to let him/her watch some tv and have some friends.

      Its like "Who shot JR?" or "Who killed Laura Palmer?" Its contemporary to the time the movie/tv show was released. After that, its history.

    14. Re:why the new series sucks by Scaba · · Score: 1

      C. S. Lewis leaned towards starting with The Magician's Nephew, though he was less inclined towards violence (as you seem to be) if someone were to choose another order. On a side note, Clive Staples Lewis died on 1963-11-22, the same day the American president John Fitzgerald Kennedy was shot. Perhaps JFK had recently read The Magician's Nephew without having read the five preceding books?

    15. Re:why the new series sucks by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about taking away a child's school education

      Unfortunately, Star Wars may be the best political education many of them get.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    16. Re:why the new series sucks by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      I think anyone watching the movies for the first time should watch them in the order IV, V, VI, I, II, III. However, after the initial watching, the order from I-VI is the best. This way, you preserve the surprises, but can maintain the chronology after that. I see the sexogent..sexology..sexlogy..sexogy.......six-part series to be a story meant to be a trilogy (IV-VI) and a set of back-story you watch later (I-III).

    17. Re:why the new series sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never got to live that moment the first time!

      I was given the boxed set at a young age. At the start of each tape, it shows previews for all three movies, including the line "*Is* Darth Vader my father?".

      Whoever made that boxed set and preview should be shot.

    18. Re:why the new series sucks by syntap · · Score: 1

      "Robbing"? "Heinous crime"? Are you talking about taking away a child's school education or taking away some minor plot twists in a sci-fi movie?

      Calling the first time everyone ever saw "Luke, I am your father" when ESB first came out a minor plot twist is a bit of an understatement.

    19. Re:why the new series sucks by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      Another excellent example is Asimov's Foundation series, which painted itself into the very same corner as Star Wars. The order in which Foundation plays chronologically:

      1. All of the robot novels.
      2. Prelude to Foundation.
      3. Forward the Foundation.
      Then, the outsourced novels:
      4. Foundation's fear.
      5. Foundation and chaos.
      6. Foundation's triumph.
      Only now do we come to the original trilogy:
      7. Foundation.
      8. Foundation and empire.
      9. Second Foundation.
      Finally, the sequels:
      10. Foundation's edge.
      11. Foundation and Earth.

      But it would be sacrilege to do it that way, spoiling absolutely all the nifty twists, and Asimov was a master yarn twister. The correct order is the one in which they were written:

      1. The original Foundation trilogy.
      2. The robot novels (The caves of steel, The naked sun).
      3. The Foundation sequels.
      4. The robot sequels (Robots of dawn, Robots and empire).
      5. Prelude to Foundation.
      6. Forward the Foundation.
      7. The outsourced novels.

      This is the way I did it, and enjoyed them no end. However, a friend of mine told me he read one of the Foundation books, and that it was just OK. Which one? Prelude to Foundation. I cringed and winced.

      And hey, just when is Foundation making it to the big screen? The time is RIPE.

      Finally, FWIT, my favourite Narnia book is A Boy and His Horse.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    20. Re:why the new series sucks by Tab+is+on+Slashdot · · Score: 0

      Someone posted it on here in a previous Star Wars topic, but it's brilliant enough to repeat. Watching the movies in the order of 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 6 manages to keep almost all spoilers in tact without ruining continuity. The twins revelation in ROTJ is one of the few to be sacrificed, however, instead the viewer then is left to assume throughout Sith that Luke is the only child in Padme's womb. At the end, when it's revealed that she's carrying twins, you're hit with the fact that Luke and Leia are brother and sister and left to piece that together yourself. Somehow that ordering manages to fix everything Lucas broke about the storyline of the saga with the pre-trilogy.

    21. Re:why the new series sucks by Stuart+Gibson · · Score: 1

      Damn, where's the hilarious-but-you're-evidently-going-straight-to-h ell mod?

      Stuart

      --
      It's all fun and games until a 200' robot dinosaur shows up and trashes Neo-Tokyo... Again
    22. Re:why the new series sucks by maggot+the+shrew · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Having had to suffer through the big, "Oh, you've got to be kidding me." in RotJ, I think anything that would spare the audience the silly revelation that Luke french kissed his sister is a good think.

    23. Re:why the new series sucks by XO · · Score: 1

      I read the first 3 Foundation novels front-to-back, in one volume, back in school. I can't remember one bit about them. For that matter, I didn't even remember reading them, until someone asked me a few weeks ago "Have you ever read Foundation?" ... and I thought about it for a few minutes.

      Foundation holds the interest of a 12 year old, but sucks worse than Star Wars to an adult.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    24. Re:why the new series sucks by Bazzalisk · · Score: 1

      Fantasy movie, please.

      --
      James P. Barrett
    25. Re:why the new series sucks by Simon+Garlick · · Score: 1

      Only if they grow up in the USA.

    26. Re:why the new series sucks by epine · · Score: 1

      Now that's an interesting proposition: does the Foundation Series "suck worse than Star Wars to an adult"?

      I read the Foundation series as a teenager in copies that already smelled musty in 1980. I couldn't understand what the fuss was about. I liked the premise more than its execution.

      Around that age I fled a high school of the caliber you might expect to find in a Sand People settlement in a Podunk crevice on planet Tatooine. I ended up being interviewed by a rather pompous headmaster who asked me about my reading interests and I claimed to have recently enjoyed Clark and Heinlein. He told me "You need to read Asimov." My response was not so political. What's Asimov to me? I won't know if I'll like the guy until I read him.

      What I find reading Asimov is that the pool table is rigged for one trick shot after another. And then the major theme of Foundation is "what would happen if just one important ball couldn't be controlled?" He was writing about his own writing process. Could the outcome of Asimov's narrative be determined by a set of equations? Yes. Was there any chance a joker would turn his narrative in a direction he hadn't indended from the outset? No chance that I detected.

      Asimov was a voracious reader and he knew a lot of history. Yet when I reread a large chunk of the first Foundation novel a few months ago, it contains some of the most politically naive and stilted dialog I've willed myself to suffer through. Fortunately, he never a wrote a love scene between Padme and Anakin. But he could have if he'd wanted to and not improved matters one whit.

      Star Wars sucks in such a different dimension its hard to begin comparing the two. Why do they call it space opera? Because of the Hillbilly factor where it turns out everyone is related to everyone else? That was fine while The Force still existed. The universe is being guided by an invisible script that conspires against dullness. OK, I get it. But then ... the midichlorians whose primary gift is the ability to drive too fast in close quarters or dismantle large armies who politely shoot in single file while their dread adversary lunges around with a bright "I'm over here" stick.

      And there's the Empire hard at work building a Death Star (and its replacement) when all they really needed was a Tommy Gun.

      Star Wars sucks less because it's less rational. You stop to say "this is stupid" but then you linger over "just how stupid is this" and it becomes kind of fun again. Whereas with the Foundation series I find it sterile, manipulated, obsessing over a vantage point rather than the real thing, equally implausible, and lacking in comic potential.

    27. Re:why the new series sucks by gstoddart · · Score: 1
      But I realized back when Ep2 came out that it wasn't a good idea to watch the movies in chronological order.

      The prequels are interesting in the sense that they fill in some gaps and the backstory, but I don't recommend watching them without seeing eps 4,5, & 6 first.

      I think that is fairly universal with prequels. You wouldn't reakky read Prelude To Foundation before reading Foundation.

      A prequel has the chance to go back and flesh out back-stories and fill in the canon, but changing the order would definitely mess up the way you perceive the originals -- you might get caught up with the story and decide the original wasn't as well written as the prequels -- because the author has gotten better.
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    28. Re:why the new series sucks by CausticPuppy · · Score: 1

      "Robbing"? "Heinous crime"? Are you talking about taking away a child's school education or taking away some minor plot twists in a sci-fi movie?

      That's what happens when you post from inside the Hyperbolic Chamber.

      --
      -CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
    29. Re:why the new series sucks by endlessoul · · Score: 1

      Although you seem to be taking it a little more personally than any other sane human being would, I am almost in the same boat that the 7-year old is. I've seen Eps 1-3, but the difference between us?

      I HAVE NOT SEEN THE THREE ORIGINAL MOVIES!

      Commence fainting, wailing, and gnashing of teeth.

      By the way, I plan on seeing the original movies shortly. :)

    30. Re:why the new series sucks by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      I'm glad to find I'm not the only one out there who has an issue with that.

  6. I know what I'd be thinking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "What happened to everybody's madd light saber skillz???"

    1. Re:I know what I'd be thinking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I thought the duels between Luke and Anakin were MUCH better than all of the fights in the prequels. I mean, come on. Are we honestly supposed to believe that Darth Maul would freeze like a deer in the headlights? And what about Anakin losing his leg? All of these "great" battles are ended on what seems like lucky hits. Is Count Duku really that incompetent? The lightsaber battles in the prequels just don't live up to the originals.

    2. Re:I know what I'd be thinking... by Nate4D · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This one's not too hard, actually.

      Let me start off by pointing out that Lucas' series is chock full of plotholes, and I solve them only because it's a fun mental exercise.

      Now then.

      Vader no longer has biological legs or arms in episodes IV-VI. Instead, he has robotic prosthetic limbs, and not very good ones compared to Luke's hand (and what's left of the organic parts is in pretty bad shape). He's also ~40 years old. His abilities with the Force are nowhere near as powerful as before his death, according to Lucas.

      So, his lightsaber fighting isn't going to be very good anymore.

      Obi-wan, now, he's explainable too. I don't remember the real numbers, but I'd assume he's around 60ish. While he's been training for a long time in the desert, he can't have had a remotely challenging lightsaber fight in the past twenty years, with not even potential sparring partners... Put those two factors together, and you can see where he might have lost the touch.

      Luke is the easiest. Sure, he's strong with the Force, but he has no idea how the Jedi used to fight with lightsabers, and since Obi-wan dies so soon after they meet, he has no one to teach him the advanced technique. When he goes to train with Yoda, he doesn't learn it, presumably because Yoda had such a handful just getting this overaged pupil to use the Force at all, and to concentrate properly.

      --
      "Oh, I like geeks way better than I like humans." - Mari Sarris
    3. Re:I know what I'd be thinking... by Nate4D · · Score: 1

      Gah, I need more sleep.

      Strike "death", that was supposed to say, "near-death".

      --
      "Oh, I like geeks way better than I like humans." - Mari Sarris
    4. Re:I know what I'd be thinking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as why Vader doesn't do any awesome jumps or flips, just think about this: The last time he did a flashy jump, it ended VERY badly. That sort of thing would make one move to a more stable fighting style.

      Obi-Wan fought kind of flashy in TPM, but much less so in the other two prequels. It's not hard to imagine that that would only grow worse being alone for 20 years.

    5. Re:I know what I'd be thinking... by Sheetwakahn · · Score: 1

      Actually in the making of videos for Episode one Lucas pretty much spells this out, he say in the "Prime of the Jedi" behind-the-scenes video regarding the ferocity of Lightsaber combat - "up to now we've only seen old men and crippled half-droid men and boys who have learned from these people"

  7. Ah ... by SpooForBrains · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Why are red leader and gold leader the leaders? They don't know what they're doing..."

    A question many of us have been asking ourselves ever since *we* saw it the first time ...

    --
    "The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
    1. Re:Ah ... by cgenman · · Score: 1

      That's a question we've been asking about the green leader since we saw The Phantom Menace.

    2. Re:Ah ... by fishbowl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Why are red leader and gold leader the leaders? They don't know what they're doing..."

      Point men... Expendable. Call them "heros" or "leaders" or whatever it takes to get them to fly in front, or detect land mines, or draw out the enemy fire, or whatever suicidal thing you want them to do.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    3. Re:Ah ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Funny

      "turbolaser cannon fodder"

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    4. Re:Ah ... by nyekulturniy · · Score: 1

      Combat attrition. The Rebellion, like the Japanese and Germans in World War II, had to keep their best fighters in combat. This caused a toll on experienced leaders.

      To continue the World War II analogy (after all, the attack scene in Ep. 4 was loosely based on "The Dam Busters" and other WW2 flicks), there would tend to be 4 to 8 percent losses in each sortie for a squadron. Ten sorties could mean as much as an 80% turnover. The Red and Gold squadron leaders could have been mediocre pilots who were made squadron leader on the basis of surviving.

      --
      Nyekulturniy... Proudly confusing readers and editors since 1981!
    5. Re:Ah ... by david.given · · Score: 1

      "turbolaser cannon fodder"

      No, that's the TIE fighters. If you've ever played Tie Fighter you'll know what I mean --- your basic TIE is designed to do exactly one job: to come screaming onto the screen and be blown away be the heroes. Actually trying to do anything useful in one --- like, say, surviving --- is quite tricky...

    6. Re:Ah ... by kfg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When bicycle racing I like to find some really big guy who obviously isn't that experienced, and continually bolster him up with how great he's doing, while drafting him the whole time.

      Come to think of it, I used to do much the same thing while playing dodgeball in grade school.

      Same deal I guess.

      KFG

    7. Re:Ah ... by Seraphim1982 · · Score: 1

      If you want to continue the WWII analogy there wasn't any such thing as a mediocre fighter pilot who survives. In World War II figher piolots generally came in two catagories, aces and targets. Assuming your squadron was treated properly then once you managed to survive long enough to shoot down 5 enemy planes then you were usually able to survive till the end of your tour.

      I'd also point out that short of some sort of disaster your 80% turnover scenario is very unlikely. If someone was shot down and killed, then the odds were that his replacement would get shot down on his first mission (IIRC 11% of American fighter piolots were shot down on their first mission). After ten missions what would probably have happened is that most of the squadron would be the same, a few early replacements would still be around, and the rest of the suadron would have been occupied by piolots who wern't good enough to stay flying.

    8. Re:Ah ... by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      That's pretty much related to the point that most casualties happen near the beginning of large operations, they don't happen in a constant rate. Call it natural selection.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    9. Re:Ah ... by Progman2000 · · Score: 1

      Which is why it was so much fun! Few people know the challenges of piloting an unshielded (and arguably unarmored) fighter against a few dozen well-shielded and well-armed enemies.

      Heck, you want fun? One T/F against a Calamari Cruiser. If the thing is far enough from its jump point (or waiting for something), you *can* take it out.

      [Note: I played far more TIE Fighter than XvT. Some of my favorite survival tricks in TF are quick and certain death in XvT]

    10. Re:Ah ... by david.given · · Score: 1
      One T/F against a Calamari Cruiser. If the thing is far enough from its jump point (or waiting for something), you *can* take it out.

      I once managed to knock 50% off the shields of a Star Destroyer by parking myself right behind it and holding down the fire key on my joystick. Unfortunately, at 50%, the Star Destroyer decided that it wanted to go somewhere, started turning, and swatted me out of the sky... do not taunt happy fun Star Destroyer.

      Some of my favorite survival tricks in TF are quick and certain death in XvT

      Hell, yeah. I couldn't even get past the Alliance training mission; my instincts had been so finely honed by TF that I couldn't dodge turbolaser fire any more.

    11. Re:Ah ... by identity0 · · Score: 1

      Well, in air combat the better pilot is supposed to go after the enemy/drop the bombs while his wingman watches his back and warns/protects him. I think what happened is more like "This is what happens when you have Luke watching your back." : )

  8. It's all about the droids by Soong · · Score: 5, Funny
    "So, does this mean that R2-D2 is really the main character in Star Wars?"

    Yep. R2 is truely the most Force attuned of them all. Yoda and the other Jedi may have Midichlorians, but R2 has METAL chlorians! [guitar riff!] Excellent!

    --
    Start Running Better Polls
    1. Re:It's all about the droids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's more going on beneath the dome than meets the eye...

      R2-D2 must be a piece of history that all things flux from (in star wars) since he has to do with everything that happens, not to mention how many times he saves people's arses!

    2. Re:It's all about the droids by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 2, Funny

      R2 has METAL chlorians! [guitar riff!]

      Yeah, but George Lucas has MENTAL chlorians!

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    3. Re:It's all about the droids by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      No, George Lucas has mental blocks which were given to him by his parents on his sixth birthday. That's how he can ignore the millions of voices that cried out in pain upon the release of Episode I ... and were suddenly silenced.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    4. Re:It's all about the droids by sdo1 · · Score: 4, Funny
      That's how he can ignore the millions of voices that cried out in pain upon the release of Episode I ... and were suddenly silenced

      Silenced?

      --
      --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
    5. Re:It's all about the droids by rootofevil · · Score: 1

      Best post ever.

      Party on Wayne!

      --
      turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
    6. Re:It's all about the droids by ip_fired · · Score: 1

      I know *I* died of the pain from that movie after that it came out. It sure is fun here in the afterlife though. I get to read /. all day long!

      --
      Don't count your messages before they ACK.
    7. Re:It's all about the droids by NeoOokami · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I now have a new reason to seek immortality!

    8. Re:It's all about the droids by h3llfish · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The kid is correct. Lucas has said in the past that the original trilogy is told from the point of view of the droids. That's not nearly as true of the prequel trilogy, but nevertheless, the droids are the only characters to figure prominently in all six movies, especially Artoo.

    9. Re:It's all about the droids by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Yes, well ... I was trying to paraphrase Obi Wan and it got a little forced. Sorry.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    10. Re:It's all about the droids by Enrico+Pulatzo · · Score: 1

      If Lucas ignored complaints about episode 1 (though I think he did try to please the fans in ep2), then yes, the voices were silenced.

      From a certain point of view.

    11. Re:It's all about the droids by Chubby_C · · Score: 1

      Party on Garth!

      --
      - My question is: Can Slashdot be Slashdotted? -
    12. Re:It's all about the droids by ajs · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It has been my speculation since about 2 seconds before the end of Episode 2 that R2 is, in fact, an avatar of the force. Here's the details of the theory:

      Long ago, Corsicant, a plantet girded by a single city, became not just self-aware (which many droids are), but self-motivated and free-willed.

      It decided that humans (and I'll use that term, even when I mean "all biological sentients") were a threat of some sort. Perhaps their wars could have destroyed the computer, or some other, more subtle sort of threat.

      In order to keep humans in check, it produced a nanotech tool called mediclorians, which could simulate a number of seemingly magical effects such as enhancing strength, generating magnetic and gravitation fields, providing sensory data, modifying the moods and simple surface-thoguhts of other (by dispersing a small cloud of them into the target creature) beings.

      By dispersing this tool among the humans, two factions were created. The first (the Sith) were meant to maintain order, but they were too ruthless, and warred among themselves. So, a second group was created to counterpoint the Sith (the Jedi). This group, however, simply wiped out the Sith, rather than achieving a balance with them.

      Anakin was created either directly by Corsicant's agents and avatars or by Palpatine on behalf of the planet (almost certainly without knowing the purpose). R2 was sent along by way of Padme to look after Anakin and make sure he was being guided down the path to "restoring balance to the force" (which becomes quite a bit more sinister when you think about it meaning the death of all but a handful of Jedi from the beginning).

      Evidence:

      R2 is the hero in so many scenes in all six movies that the point is hardly worth mentioning.

      "He's been known to be wrong... from time to time." We never do establish how smart R2 is, but clearly it's far beyond the capabilities of most Astro Droids.

      Several times people do things around R2 which make little sense (e.g. wiping the memory of C3PO, but not R2, combat droids deciding that the noise in the corner was "nothing"... do droids here things when R2 ISN'T around?)

      R2 and Yoda have a very interesting relationship. Either R2 makes Yoda forget who he is (surely a blue R2 unit showing up along side Luke isn't a mere coincidence), or they both know what's going on... which makes me wonder who exactly WAS Yoda's master....

      R2 is everywhere that an avatar of Corsicant would need to be to see the prophesy fulfilled and then set the whole process in motion again.

    13. Re:It's all about the droids by glass_window · · Score: 1

      Nice. Wish I had some mod points for you.

    14. Re:It's all about the droids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...for me to poop on!

    15. Re:It's all about the droids by jumpingfred · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That is a good theory. But like a lot of literay critism it assumes a certain amount of master planning done by the author that I think is not done but projected on the author to make the stories seem more important.

    16. Re:It's all about the droids by Soong · · Score: 1

      You put far too much thought into this. Good job. :-)

      Maybe from here on out every "the machines are really running things" plot will sound a bit Matrix-y, but, this sounds a bit Matrix-y. Although, having to do with nanotechnology and the physical world makes it better.

      Also, if you're ever not sure there's a God out there, become one. Maybe He only bothers to speak to His equals. So, we have lots of classic Sci-Fi in here. Asimov has a story about a God-computer, and we have it exercizing Clarke's law of sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic. Awesome.

      </ramble>

      --
      Start Running Better Polls
    17. Re:It's all about the droids by philipkd · · Score: 1

      Or R2 is just the plain-old deus ex machina. Wait, I think that's what you are saying.

    18. Re:It's all about the droids by dubbreak · · Score: 1

      I like it. I'm sure George didn't have the forthought for something that deep, but it would make a great movie/series.

      Flesh it out a bit more and write a book/screenplay, seriously.

      --
      "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
    19. Re:It's all about the droids by MixmastaKooz · · Score: 1

      I don't know about your Corsicant thesis, but I'm pretty sure that R2 is Force attuned, and I'm too lazy to find the link, but Lucas has stated that R2 is the true hero of the series.

    20. Re:It's all about the droids by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      " Yes, well ... I was trying to paraphrase Obi Wan and it got a little forced. Sorry."

      Hehe, "forced".

    21. Re:It's all about the droids by tecie · · Score: 1

      The theory of Jedi + Sith being created is almost EXACTLY the story of the transformers, where the Autobots were designed to protect and the Decepticons were designed to expand. Eventually war broke out.
      Truthfully I really didnt like the fact that Lucas decided to add some sort of physical process to the whole force concept, but I suppose a beurocracy couldn't exist without logging technology of some sort, so it was a nessesary evil.

    22. Re:It's all about the droids by bbc · · Score: 1

      "That is a good theory. But like a lot of literay critism it assumes a certain amount of master planning done by the author that I think is not done but projected on the author to make the stories seem more important."

      I agree that it is a good theory, but not that it assumes master planning by the author.

      If a painter paints a mountain, I can theorize that there is a city behind the mountain, even if the painter never thought of that. The OP is filling in the gaps, so to say.

      Your mention of master planning did help me to formulate a criticism of the theory however: it is too paranoid. The theory hinges on a huge conspiracy working for decades in the background, only producing barely visible ripples at the surface. Life Doesn't Work That Way. Ask the cabal if you doubt me.

    23. Re:It's all about the droids by ajs · · Score: 1

      "Your mention of master planning did help me to formulate a criticism of the theory however: it is too paranoid. The theory hinges on a huge conspiracy working for decades in the background, only producing barely visible ripples at the surface."

      Well, yes. However, take a look at the rest of what Lucas has done, and decide for yourself. Is that kind of thing in line with a warehouse full of dangerous magical artifacts that no one is ever told about (Raiders of the Lost Ark)? Look at the Yound Indiana Jones show and some of the conspiracies in there.

      Sure, it's too paranoid for the REAL WORLD, but is it too paranoid for Star Wars, the background of which is Lucas's invention?

      Watch Episode 2 again, and listen for a line from Obi Wan along the lines of, "it's lucky for us the droids don't have free will, or we'd all be working for them." Random line or hint? You decide.

    24. Re:It's all about the droids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ::must applaud comment::

    25. Re:It's all about the droids by Snaller · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But why would the planet want to "bring balance"?

      And its Coruscant btw.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    26. Re:It's all about the droids by Destoo · · Score: 1
      If you want to see where the inspiration came for ANH, try to get your hands on "Hidden Fortress" from Kurosawa.

      "In an interview for the Criterion collection DVD, George Lucas states that while this film is a story a story about a princess and her protectors that this is not the element inspired Star Wars. Lucas states the inspiration comes from the telling of the story through the eyes of two smaller roles. In Hidden Fortress it is the two thieves, in Star Wars it is C3PO and R2D2"

      --
      Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC
  9. gotta agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    i find even the regular /. comments hard to read with 8 beers down.

    *hic*

  10. Good question. by NIK282000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, does this mean that R2-D2 is really the main character in Star Wars?
    Well you could ask Lucas but I doubt he would know.

    --
    Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    1. Re:Good question. by moranar · · Score: 1
      So, does this mean that R2-D2 is really the main character in Star Wars?
      Well you could ask Lucas but I doubt he would know.

      Careful! If he realizes this, he'd have to make three movies to "tell the true story" about it.

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea!"
      Gandhi, about Internet Security
    2. Re:Good question. by julesh · · Score: 1

      Actually, if I recall correctly, he did say before they started production of ep 1 (I think actually around about the time ROTJ was released, but I'm not sure, my memory's very hazy back that far) that he'd got outlines for 9 episodes, and that R2 and C3PO are the only characters that are in all of them...

  11. Hilarious by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A seven year old is more sophisticated watching his movies than George Lucas could muster while actually engaged in writing them. But then, some of us suspected as much, having been exposed to Howard the Duck.

    1. Re:Hilarious by softends · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, Howard the Duck confuses the hell out of seven year olds. Even they don't know what to make of it.

  12. Pity..Spoiled by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You can enjoy a production of Hamlet
    knowing that the prince goes mad. I don't think
    it spoils anything to know the surprise in Empire.

    I was not surprised -- not saying I saw it coming, exactly, but it was one of the possibilities that had crossed my mind. I thought it was more likely that Obi-Wan *was* Vader. That was the twist I was expecting. I had a whole argument for it and everything, back then. I was a little bummed to find out I was wrong.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    1. Re:Pity..Spoiled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hamlet goes mad?!?!

    2. Re:Pity..Spoiled by iamatlas · · Score: 2, Interesting
      First: Shakespeare compared to Star Wars/George Lucas's writing? Not cool man, not cool. I think thou must be geeked too much ;)


      Second, Hamlet doesn't much go mad as act the way a son might if he thought his uncle killed his dad and wasn't sure. (This issue debated endlessly though in Ph.D Dissertations and random other blatherings) Opelia's suicide or Pelonius's accidental murder, now those are things that knowing could spoil, or not, the enjoyment.

    3. Re:Pity..Spoiled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damnit...I was 1 hour into Kenneth Branough's 4 hour Hamlet and you have to go and spoil it by telling me Opelia commits suicide. Thanks for nothing.

    4. Re:Pity..Spoiled by supersocialist · · Score: 1

      I think I speak for everybody when I say "what was that argument?"

    5. Re:Pity..Spoiled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mad? Hamlet was only mad north-northwest; when the wind was southerly he knew a hawk from a handsaw...

    6. Re:Pity..Spoiled by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "First: Shakespeare compared to Star Wars/George Lucas's writing?"

      I wish the Star Wars epic had been written with the completeness and continuity of the Wagner operas.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    7. Re:Pity..Spoiled by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      ah.. are you going to tell us what the argument was? I really can't think of any so i'd be interested to see why you thought that.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    8. Re:Pity..Spoiled by identity0 · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's too unreasonable; I mean, if SW had multiple interpretations as Hamlet does, there'd be some versions with better acting, editing, etc. There's enough good bits in the story to be as good as Shakespeare in the hands of a good director.

      Speaking of Hamlet, I'm reminded of a story I heard on NPR about a prison where a director did an outreach program to prisoners by producing a perfermance of Hamlet using the prisoners. One of the actors brought up the point that there is no realistic conflict in Hamlet - there's no reason for Hamlet not to kill the guy, who has no arguments going for him.

      Oh well, at least Shakespeare did not butcher his works with prequels.

  13. Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Shivetya · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If one thing I found was that I was more bound to side with the Empire simply after seeing how inept the Republic truly was.

    The new perspective gained from watching the first three puts the whole series in a new light. The Empire really became what it was simply because the Republic and Jedi had become so egocentric and inept they had to be replaced to move forward.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      That's the appeal of the Dark Side: its power is seductive to those who are afraid of weakness. But that power has a cost...

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      One of the high-points of the last film was that Palpatine's Dark Side dialog had at least a little worldly substance behind it, and wasn't just corny cliches (like your post :)

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    3. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Ian+Action · · Score: 1

      (Score:5, Darkside)

      --
      Why am I not rapping? I am rapping with you in a way.
    4. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 4, Interesting

      FWIW, when I played x-Wing vs. Tie Fighter long ago it was fun to work through the ranks as an Empire pilot. Being indoctrinated, bringing peace, stability, and law-and-order to the galaxy. A different perspective added a lot.

    5. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Actually, the seductive promise of eternal life by the Dark Side, and its slick appearance, are corny cliches. Because they happen to be old, persistent parts of the package. Just because Lucas' film was unusually accurate in presenting the fraudulent Dark bargain as it usually comes across, appealing and slick, rather than the usual Hollywood exaggeration of an obviously bad deal, doesn't make it any better a deal, or any more original. Especially if you work every day in Hollywood. Even the actual extended life of Obi Wan, intact in spirit and appearance in Luke's mind, compared with the horribly extended lives of Vader and Palpatine, though cliched, ring true. But I guess if you're really jaded, then extended torment in the knowledge of complicity in tyranny might just stimulate you longer than just being good.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    6. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by eganloo · · Score: 3, Insightful
      If one thing I found was that I was more bound to side with the Empire simply after seeing how inept the Republic truly was.

      The new perspective gained from watching the first three puts the whole series in a new light.The Empire really became what it was simply because the Republic and Jedi had become so egocentric and inept they had to be replaced to move forward.


      The same can be said for real-life historical precedents: the diseased Roman Republic-turned-Empire before the literal barbarians at the gate, the decadent Russian czardom before the Russian Revolution, the power-seizing military coup d'état of Cambodia before Khmer Rouge, the enfeebled Reichstag before the Third Rei--ehrm, mustn't invoke Godwin's law...

      However, as history also shows above, what would replace the corrupt institutions were not always shining beacons themselves ....

      The Rebel Alliance are the counter-revolutionaries, with everything good and bad that it implies about them and the original "revolutionaries" they fought.
    7. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      Sure, the eternal life idea was corny, and presenting that as Anikan's motivation completely failed. But there was other dialog which presented the Dark Side as more sophisticated and balanced than the Jedis' holier-than-thou one-sided views. Which at least finally left the door open for the idea that maybe the Republic was ineffectual and corrupt, and maybe the Dark Side was the right answer at the right time. And that at least give the Emperor's character some motiviation, if not for Darth Vader.

      The biggest general problem with the Star Wars films is that this Force business is about as deep as a puddle. Therefore, there's nothing the characters can say about it that you haven't heard 100 times before -- "Embrace your Fear|Anger ... Feel the Power of the Dark Side ... blah blah blah" -- it was already tired and boring at the end of Empire Strikes Back, and even Return of the Jedi's big conflict fell flat as a result.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    8. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm still waiting for an epic space opera based more on _Beyond Good and Evil_ and _Either/Or_, than on Zoroaster's 3000 year-old poetry. Not just because Evil looks so cool, and Good so dull - but because I'm not a 10-year old going to see Star Wars anymore. I need a more complex representation of nonlinear ethics, because both Good and Evil, and their opposition monopolizing ethics, are all dull. Evil isn't getting any cooler, even though I am.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    9. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by h3llfish · · Score: 1, Funny

      You are more bound to side with the good folks who:

      - killed kids
      - enslaved the wookies
      - destroyed the weaponless planet Alderaan
      - yada yada yada

      You MUST be a Republican. Heil Bush!

    10. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Kesh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Marx called. He'd like to have his book back. ;)

      Seriously though, the most effective form of government is a dictatorship. Any government based on freedom is bound to be (at least somewhat) inept and inefficient. That's why the Republic looks slow, inept and complicated; while the Empire looks efficient, directed and simple.

      So, which do you prefer? :)

    11. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by stuktongue · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am rather amazed that this is the sort of take-away view that people might have of the series overall. To me, this is missing the entire point Lucas is making.

      Look, I'm not saying that all members of the Galactic Empire's fighting forces were evil; in fact, I'm of the opinion that many thought they were on the side of right, attempting to restore order, etc. That does not mean, however, that the Empire is the side to side with.

      I also do not believe it is correct to brand the Jedi, or other members of the Republic, as inept. Yes, the Jedi were blind to the manipulations going on around them due, supposedly, to their arrogance and, yes, supporters of the Republic way of doing things put too much faith in democracy. These sorts of weaknesses are time-honored in storytelling of this type.

      That said, I hardly consider the Emperor's assumption of power to be a move in the forward direction. That would be akin to saying that Nazi Germany was a good step forward because the trains ran on time. Remember, we are led to believe in Ep. 4, 5, and 6 that the Empire is pretty naughty in implementing it's plans--one need look no further than the destruction of Alderaan for evidence of this. Not the sort of environment I'd look forward to living in.

      Yes, the prequels, especially Ep. 3, do a decent job of filling in the backstory, but I think the real lessons of the series come from 4, 5, and 6: fighting oppression, facing your enemy, and redemption.

      Anyway, that's my view.

    12. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a Republican if I've ever heard one.

    13. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +5 funny, and I am a Republican.

    14. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      After the second movie, I was hoping the "separatists" would evolve into the rebellion as they figured out what was going on. This would add extra [dramatic stuff] in that the emperor sowed the seeds of his own defeat by creating them in the first place.

      I was especially disappointed when they turned out to STILL be working for sideous in the third movie despite the fact that they were double-crossed in the first movie and knew he was a dark jedi in charge of the senate in the second film.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    15. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but they became inept and egocentric because the lord of the Sith was running the Senate, remember? The emperor created all the chaos in the first place.

    16. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by dasunt · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the point that the Jedi seem to have recordings of Palpatine's chamber.

    17. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by sconeu · · Score: 1

      I need a more complex representation of nonlinear ethics, because both Good and Evil, and their opposition monopolizing ethics, are all dull.

      Babylon 5, and also Star Trek:DS9.

      In particular, watch the DS9 episode "In the Pale Moonlight".

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    18. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be akin to saying that Nazi Germany was a good step forward because the trains ran on time.

      You have invoked Godwin's Law.

      You lose.

    19. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Planesdragon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Evil isn't getting any cooler, even though I am.

      No, not really.

      Good and Evil are the bright and dark edges of morality. ALL drama is fundamentally a question of where the characters stand on the middle ground.

      Bitching about this simple human truth isn't cool; it's just a sign of foolishness.

      (Now, there are two or three better ways to get the point "SW morality is too simple" across, but dening the difference between Right and Wrong isn't one of them.)

      (Oh, and your complex nonlinear space opera would be Babylon 5.)

    20. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by mikael · · Score: 1

      A different perspective added a lot.

      You can do that with almost any action movie that you haven't seen before. Start watching the movie from somewhere in the middle, then watch the movie from the start again (I did this when "On Deadly Ground" came out and I was staying in a hotel paid for by company expenses. Since I didn't want to add additional charges to the bill I could only watch the movie from the free 30 minutes allowed each day). Since I didn't see the first half of the movie, the character played by Steven Segal seemed to be the bad guy, since there was not justification for him blowing up the oil rig and shooting all the workers. It's only after seeing the start of the movie that the motivation was explained.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    21. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by STrinity · · Score: 1

      That's the appeal of the Dark Side: its power is seductive to those who are afraid of weakness.

      And those who oppose slavery.

      Note that the Jedi were so busy arbitrating trade disputes that they couldn't be bothered to do anything about the horrific conditions on Tatooine, but by the Holy Trilogy only gangsters like Jabba have slaves. (And before anyone tells me to go read some Extended Universe novel that clearly shows the Empire allowing slavery, I don't care, it's not canon -- only what's on screen in Episodes I-VI counts.)

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    22. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Babylon 5 is awesome and I love it, but it isn't exactly nonlinear.

      Firefly might have been a second (it was certainly shaping up to be), but it's hard to tell from just 14 episodes. And even the potential full trilogy of movies will only give us half that time. Damn shame.

    23. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      I think he snuck through the loophole of actually discussing politics w/r/t dictatorships. One can't invoke Godwin when actually talking about ol' Adolph, I think.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    24. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by joemontoya · · Score: 1

      Hear, Hear man! This is the reoccuring theme in the later Star Wars material - that the Jedi inclination to inaction, basically a buddhist trait, ultimately lead to their downfall.

    25. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by anduril1 · · Score: 1

      That would be akin to saying that Nazi Germany was a good step forward because the trains ran on time.

      It was Mussolini that supposedly made the trains run on time.

      The more you tighten your grip, Mussolini, the more time tables will slip through your fingers.

    26. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most efficient form of government is a totalitarian dictatorship. Democracies are, by nature, slow and inefficient. Republics attempt to speed things up through the use of representation, so that there aren't a billion voices all speaking at once.

      The general rule of lawmaking is, decisions are made much quicker when there is no debate.

      But what seems like ineptitude in a rule-by-committee government is often actually wisdom. To take a new law, for example, and scrutinize it from all perspectives and angles before making a final decision on whether to pass it or not means those laws are definitely going to be much better for the society than laws passed quickly without second thought.

      And, by taking the time to debate, it ensures all sides are heard. Everyone has a voice, not just the ones holding the popular majority. Unfortunately, these debates, because of so many different voices, and because some of these perspectives are naturally opposing, can take a very, very long time.

      But that's the price to pay for freedom. It isn't so much that freedom and efficiency are mutually exclusive, but that in an efficient government, freedom can be taken away as efficiently as it can be granted.

      The Republic and the Jedi were very egocentric. The issue is not whether change (or reform, in political-speak) was needed, but what changes needed to be made. Going the route of the Empire would be the easy way out--sort of like kicking a television set when it broke rather than actually learning how to fix televisions and opening it up to figure out how to fix it. Sometimes, kicking the TV would make it good again, and sometimes, the thing would break beyond repair.

    27. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That said, I hardly consider the Emperor's assumption of power to be a move in the forward direction. That would be akin to saying that Nazi Germany was a good step forward because the trains ran on time. Remember, we are led to believe in Ep. 4, 5, and 6 that the Empire is pretty naughty in implementing it's plans--one need look no further than the destruction of Alderaan for evidence of this. Not the sort of environment I'd look forward to living in.

      Alderaan was a hotbed of military rebellion that was killing imperial citizens. The change from a republic to an empire was legal, and ratified by The Republic, if they didnt like it, that should have pushed for more votes. Open rebelion is treason. I'm betting that the colatteral damage was pretty low when they blew up Alderaan. Traitors. As for the rest, Chancelor Palpatine stayed entirely within the law. Palpatine was removing the cancer of Alderaan, which was upsetting the peace of the galaxy. The Empire was just defending itself from Terrorists. What legitimate reason did Alderaan have for armed insurrection against the Empire.

      I you beleive that Alderaan is peaceful, I think that those tight hair buns are clouding your logic, she lied about everything, it was an Alderaan Vessel that was stealing plans, and firing on an Imperial Vessel.

      Now the trick is to justify the Rebels of Star Wars, without justifying the Iraqi Resistance (not the insurgents, different story) at all.

      Any Takers?

    28. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Nasarius · · Score: 1

      Are you sure you're talking about XvT and not TIE Fighter? The plot in XvT was pretty thin; it was mostly just a multiplayer game. TIE Fighter, on the other hand, was easily the best of the entire series (from X-Wing to X-Wing: Alliance).

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    29. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I need a more complex representation of nonlinear ethics, because both Good and Evil, and their opposition monopolizing ethics, are all dull.
      -

      Babylon 5, and also Star Trek:DS9.

      -
      It seems you must've missed this, it was just before the sentence you quoted:
      "I'm not a 10-year old going to see Star Wars anymore."

    30. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Nasarius · · Score: 1
      Yes, the prequels, especially Ep. 3, do a decent job of filling in the backstory, but I think the real lessons of the series come from 4, 5, and 6: fighting oppression, facing your enemy, and redemption.

      Yes. If there's one thing that Episode 3 did right (for me, at least), it was showing why the Empire was a force that had to be resisted.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    31. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did this when "On Deadly Ground" came out and I was staying in a hotel paid for by company expenses. Since I didn't want to add additional charges to the bill I could only watch the movie from the free 30 minutes allowed each day

      That still doesn't explain why you were watching a Steven Segal film in the first place.

    32. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Buster+Chan · · Score: 1

      A more complex representation of non-linear ethics is within the unproduced TV scripts at http://www.geocities.com/radiomovie2002/ If you read at least the first seven episodes, you'll agree.

      --
      "I am a fictional character."
    33. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Spoing · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Seriously though, the most effective form of government is a dictatorship. Any government based on freedom is bound to be (at least somewhat) inept and inefficient. That's why the Republic looks slow, inept and complicated; while the Empire looks efficient, directed and simple.

      The government under a dictatorship will be efficient. The governed will not be. That's why dictatorships don't thrive outside of the dictator's and dictator's associates personal estates.

      (Looked for a reference in the Tao/Dao Te Ching for governments being brutal when efficient, so inefficent governments are to be encouraged...but couldn't find it.)

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    34. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by h4rm0ny · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Seriously though, the most effective form of government is a dictatorship. Any government based on freedom is bound to be (at least somewhat) inept and inefficient.

      The most effective form of government is that which needs to govern least. Think of the effort and resources that must go into maintaining control and compelling people's obediance. A nation of the willing is so much more powerful. But your statement of inefficiency has a presumptution of what the purpose of a nation is. From the point of view of the majority it is to live a happy and fulfilled life. A dictatorship most certainly is not the most efficient way of achieving this (assuming it were possible). If you're presumption is that industrial productivity, GDP, etc. are the purpose of a nation (which is what I'm inferrring), then I think that you are still wrong. The US is only recently becoming a non-free society and for most of its history has been stupendously successful.

      That's why the Republic looks slow, inept and complicated; while the Empire looks efficient, directed and simple.

      No, that's because it's fiction produced by someone who shares your worldview. :)

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    35. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by TrekCycling · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing the point COMPLETELY. The point is that in the original trilogy (hereafter called the "Good Movies") Lucas often had his characters referring with reverance to the days of the Republic. Then, when he finally gets a chance to show the Republic in the prequels (hereafter called the "Bad Movies") it's boring and inept and corrupt and slow-witted. Frickin' Jar Jar Binks is a representative for God's sake.

      The Jedi are a bunch of morons who take a known risk and put him with a Chancellor they don't trust. It's a mess. The point isn't that the Empire is good. The point is that in the Good Movies Lucas painted a much different picture of the Republic than he did in the Bad Movies. So by the time you get done with Revenge of the Sith you have no emotional investment in the downfall of the Republic and (by proxy) less emotional investment in the return of the Republic should the Rebellion beat the Empire.

      That's where Lucas really screwed the pooch with the Bad Movies. He made the Republic look so poorly run and catastrophically stupid that it took a lot of the emotional punch away from the Good Movies.

      Thus some of us just pretend like the Bad Movies never happened. Kind of like pretending there was only the first Matrix movie.

    36. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since I didn't want to add additional charges to the bill I could only watch the movie from the free 30 minutes allowed each day

      Did you consider that the 30-minute dosage limit with that movie may have SAVED YOUR LIFE?

    37. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Empire? Republic?

      Isn't it the same for the U.S.?

    38. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by eraserewind · · Score: 1

      Yrp, "at least the trains ran on time".

    39. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Scootesti · · Score: 1

      All I have to say is this:

      "So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet

      --
      "So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet
    40. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      Then, when he finally gets a chance to show the Republic in the prequels (hereafter called the "Bad Movies") it's boring and inept and corrupt and slow-witted.

      Bear in mind, it was like this in part because Palpatine was deliberatly working to make it so.

      Also, is a bumbling republic so unrealistic? Why paint a falsely rosy picture of democracy? The republic was not so much the presence of good as the avoidance of evil. i.e. The Jedi had certain lines that they wouldn't cross, such as not harming someone who is unarmed, and the Sith did whatever they could to take power. If you cross moral lines in pursuit of your goal, you turn to the dark side.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    41. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      "Palpatine was removing the cancer of Alderaan, which was upsetting the peace of the galaxy."

      I'm suddenly reminded of all those images that were flying around the net just post-9/11 with a map showing a lake where Afghanistan had been...

    42. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer anarchy, or if that isn't available, monarchy. Liechtenstein seems a very good place to live.

      "That government is best which governs least"

    43. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Part of the nonlinearity of real ethics is that !("Good vs Evil" = "Right vs Wrong").

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    44. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Nothing trumps morality better than physics, even if it's "just" heredity. Morality is a convenience of survivors.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    45. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Shivetya · · Score: 1

      Was the Republic that Lucas portrayed truly any different for the average citizen than the Empire that replaced it?

      I do agree that I would prefer a free society but Lucas went out of his way to portray a system which was so inept and so bound by tradition that there was essentially no freedom. You might appear to be free but the government could do nothing to insure that; witness Naboo.

      --
      * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    46. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by julesh · · Score: 1

      That said, I hardly consider the Emperor's assumption of power to be a move in the forward direction. That would be akin to saying that Nazi Germany was a good step forward because the trains ran on time. Remember, we are led to believe in Ep. 4, 5, and 6 that the Empire is pretty naughty in implementing it's plans--one need look no further than the destruction of Alderaan for evidence of this. Not the sort of environment I'd look forward to living in.

      How do we know that we've got the full story? All we have to go on are these "rebels" propoganda films. In fact, I don't think the Alderaan massacre actually happened. The only people who say it did are Alderanians, and their sympathisers.

      I think you're just Aldy-loving trash. Why don't you go home, Aldy? Eh? Eh? ;)

    47. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by sharpestmarble · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of Microsoft.

      OK, maybe I've gone overboard. I've just pulled MS into a discussion on a completely unrelated subject.

      --
      AC's modded -6. I don't see you, I don't mod you, anything you say is lost. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
    48. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Wudbaer · · Score: 1

      Just too true. Or to say it with the eternal words of Lord Helmchen: "Evil always wins because good is dumb." ;-)

    49. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by exKingZog · · Score: 1

      Compare the dictatorships of Nazi Germany and the Stalinist CCCP with the democracies of Britain and the US during WWII. Nazi government was a mess, where each department and official vied for favour from Hitler and spent most of their time back-stabbing their rivals (a bit like my office, actually... ;) ); Stalin's approach of simply shooting everyone who failed or disagreed was monstrously inefficient - also, witness the debacle of agricultural policy after the communist revolution. Nazi Germany's reputation for efficiency was largely thanks to the pre-Nazi bureaucracy and governmental apparatus, which had been passed down from a form of parliamentary democracy. A democracy is flexible, in that it does not rely on one individual, and is designed to be (in geek terms) fault-tolerant - if one Domain Controller goes down, the backup-DC (ie the Deputy PM / Vice President) takes charge as per standard procedures. Collaboration is possible given a greater degree of trust and openness in government, and projects can move ahead much more smoothly. In Britain, Churchill assumed near-dictatorial powers in order to run the war (this is, btw, what inspired 1984), but this smooth transition was made possible by the democractic systems and professional civil service that were in place (and Churchill was un-ceremoniously un-elected immediately after the war). A dictatorship is an extremely centralised model of control - a bit like a paranoid SysAdmin sitting on top of a creaking NT4 Domain Controller, refusing to give up admin rights to anyone, or document anything he ever does. When he goes, the system collapses.

      --
      "If he were a plant, people would roll him up and smoke him."
    50. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by SpooForBrains · · Score: 1

      In particular, watch the DS9 episode "In the Pale Moonlight".

      One of the best hours of television there is.

      --
      "The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
    51. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Udo+Schmitz · · Score: 1
      Marx called. He'd like to have his book back. ;)

      Wink or not, I wonder if you ever came close to any of Marx' writings.

      the most effective form of government is a dictatorship

      Where did you get that idea? Do you think the Sowiet Union was run well, or effectively? Do you know that Hitlers Germany was broke when he started the war and only lasted through robbing the conquered countries and using their workforce?

    52. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You make a very good point for example watching some interviews with WW-I veterans about the famous Christmas day up out the trenches chatting with the Germans the non-Germans were amazed to find that the German soldiers were totally sure they were fighting for freedom and that God was on their side so they would win.

      I suppose at the lower level you are fighting for your way of life. If you don't know about the intentions of those at the top and what it gets them all you know is that you are defending the system that provides how you live.

      If you either have no comparison to a better way of life or even highly likely a life that was better for you and your familly than it was at the bottom of a capitalist free system you might be sure you are fighting for the right side.

      Makes it tough to say your not sometimes.

    53. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by rikkards · · Score: 1

      I don't think it was a lake. I think it was supposed to be glass as in sand exposed to high heat

    54. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because I'm not a 10-year old going to see Star Wars anymore. . . . Evil isn't getting any cooler, even though I am.

      Happy Eleventh Birthday,
      Duck Rubby.

      (you fucking twit)

    55. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Part of the nonlinearity of real ethics is that !("Good vs Evil" = "Right vs Wrong").

      It's always right to be 100% good.

      It's always wrong to be 100% evil.

      that's simple. Everything else is complex.

    56. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      I agree totally. Other than the amazing RPG Grandia II, I have yet to see the following morality laid out well:

      Good/Light is the power of Creation
      Evil/Dark is the power of Destruction

      Power corrupts, no matter what.

      Good and Evil are simply manmade precepts, for Creation and Destruction must exist in balance.

    57. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      What? You know, had Hitler died before he started massacring Jews et. al., he would have gone down as the greatest ruler in German history.

    58. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by epine · · Score: 1


      The easiest way to engineer a population of the willing is to sell the idea that the system functions as a democracy. Just because the display of power is less overt doesn't mean it isn't government. Maintaining the appearance of inefficiency also works to calm the citizenry.

      Power is most efficient when it isn't being watched.

    59. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by LetterJ · · Score: 1

      "After the second movie, I was hoping the "separatists" would evolve into the rebellion as they figured out what was going on."

      But that would have ended up with a script that couldn't have been written in a 7th grade study hall, which the was clearly a requirement.

    60. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      I'm pretty sure "Leia in the golden bikini" was an "on screen in Episodes I-VI" instance of it being obvious slavery was still very much around in the Empire. On top of which, it's reasonably fair to suggest the status quo existed except where noted, so if slavery existed in the Republic, it existed in the Empire because nobody clearly abolished it.

      "I've just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the senate permanently. I've also just been told he's also abolished slavery, which strikes me as a good idea, hmmm? What do you think of that, Vader? I know you were once a slave so you must be dead pleased. Anyway, sounds like good news, pretty much yhe last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away."

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    61. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Frickin' Jar Jar Binks is a representative for God's sake"

      Thats what liberals call "diversity".

    62. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have invoked Godwin's Law.

      You lose.


      I think Godwin's Law should be changed so that the first person who mentions Godwin's Law loses. Seriously.

    63. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by SlayerDave · · Score: 1
      Seriously though, the most effective form of government is a dictatorship. Any government based on freedom is bound to be (at least somewhat) inept and inefficient.

      Not necessarily. Consider Iceland. They have the oldest continuously functioning democratic body in the world, the Althingi (Icelandic parliament), which has existed since 930. In medieval times, Iceland lacked a chief executive of any kind - the parliament functioned as both a congress and supreme court. Their society is open, free, democratic, efficient, and equitable. No dictatorship necessary.

      On the other hand, Iceland is unique in a couple of ways. They have a small, ethnically homogeneous population, geographic isolation, and excellent natural resources. The Icelandic model might not scale up to larger, geographically and culturally diverse societies.

    64. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Start watching the movie from somewhere in the middle, then watch the movie from the start again

      Heh. I did this once back when cinemas didn't care if you came in in the middle and sat though to see what you'd missed. I wish I could remember the title, it was a mid-60s movie about an art theft with overtones of Misson: Impossible. I came in just as the heist was starting. Then the first half had a totally different heist -- same art object and crooks, but different setting, different security systems, etc.

      I wasn't until more than a third of the way through the movie that I realized the first "heist" was really the planner explaining how the job was supposed to go -- and the rest of the movie is what really happens when they find out that the security systems had been changed.

      I'd been wondering if the theater was showing two different versions of the movie.

      --
      -- Alastair
    65. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Let me know when you make it to your eleventh birthday. Maybe I'll stop spanking you, you fucking loser.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    66. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Even there it's not so simple. Isn't "the devil" supposed to be "100% evil"? But the devil is an essential part of "god's plan", while god is supposed to be 100% good. Even at the poles, good/evil are asymptotic, and fractally self-referential.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    67. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      With interactivity and the personal intimacy of individual interaction, games are probably the better medium for representing complex morality stories. I think the right framework would be either Zelazny's or Moorcock's order vs chaos system. Especially Zelazny's, because it's not really as simple or linear as even that. Though Moorcock's stories are more Hollywood.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    68. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Kesh · · Score: 1
      Wink or not, I wonder if you ever came close to any of Marx' writings.

      I have, yes. My wink was because I was only referring to his call for the revolution to overthrow governments that did not serve the people. In other words, it was a throwaway joke not directly related to the prior comments.

      Humor. Go figure. ;)

      Where did you get that idea? Do you think the Sowiet Union was run well, or effectively?

      The Soviet Union was not a dictatorship. Well, not after Stalin died, anyway...

      Do you know that Hitlers Germany was broke when he started the war and only lasted through robbing the conquered countries and using their workforce?

      Well, duh. You just managed to ignore a whole swath of history there. Hitler came to power, in part, because the country had been driven to poverty by the Treaty of Versailles. He turned the country around, built up a formidable military, "got the trains running on time," and gave his nation purpose. Then, he started fighting nations he couldn't afford to, decimated his military with stupid decisions and robbed from his own people to keep up a fight that couldn't be won.

      Hitler was a terrible person, and the Holocaust cannot be forgiven. He was, however, an efficient dictator that rebuilt a nation from rubble. Not that such a thing makes up for the atrocities committed by his design, at all.

      What I was really trying to get across, which some folks seemed to miss, was the concept of the benevolent dictator. A dictator who really cares about his people is capable of providing the most stable, efficient government possible. And, in my mind, that's what young Anakin was expecting in Ep 2. "Someone wise," to make people do the right thing. Instead, it turns out that his choice was a power hungry dictator... but he was so wedded to the idea of an efficient, one-man government that he let it influence his beliefs that the Jedi and Republic were completely useless for governing the people. Thus, a violent overthrow to establish an efficient government was necessary in his mind.

      And here I thought I explained all that in one paragraph the first time. :)

    69. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by mikael · · Score: 1

      That would have been Gambit starring Michael Caine. A more detailed description here

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    70. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      Yeah, some of them were that, but most of the ones I saw were definately lakes. They had names like "Lake Freedom" or whatever.

    71. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by STrinity · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure "Leia in the golden bikini" was an "on screen in Episodes I-VI" instance of it being obvious slavery was still very much around in the Empire.

      Which is why I said, "[in] the Holy Trilogy only gangsters like Jabba have slaves.".

      On top of which, it's reasonably fair to suggest the status quo existed except where noted, so if slavery existed in the Republic, it existed in the Empire because nobody clearly abolished it.

      They didn't explicitly say there's no legal slavery in the Empire, so despite the fact that we never say any evidence of it in the Holy Trilogy, it must exist?

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    72. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by ChadN · · Score: 1

      SPOILERS

      At every choice presented to either the Republic, or the Jedi council, they make the chose wrong; it really was quite impressive. The emperor didn't even need the use of the force, he was doing such a good job of destroying the republic and the Jedi without it.

      The Jedi come across as particularly pathetic in this new series of movies. Tell me, someone, is Obi Wan supposed to be a particularly competant Jedi, because he loses his lightsaber in ALL THREE PREQUELS! Isn't the first day of lightsaber training where they tell you "Do NOT lose your lightsaber. If it starts to slip from your hand (or belt), immediately force pull it back into your hand. We will now practice this for the next 14 months." Of course, he also fairly easily defeated a four lightsaber wielding mechanical jedi-killing contraption... Guess he has his good days and bad days, as a Jedi.

      Secondly, how the heck does the Emperor get the drop on four top-echelon Jedi with their lightsabers already drawn, and kill three of them in about a second and a half? I say, give me that Sith training, because the Jedi are kinda lame.

      Also, how often can Obi Wan really get knocked unconscious for 10 minutes, as he was in the last TWO movies, without showing signs of brain damage? Of course, he DID train Anakin, so maybe he just isn't too bright.

      And Yoda? Oh boy... You should have left for Dagoba years earlier. Believe me, I still think you are a kick-ass with a lightsaber, but your intuitive powers with the force leave a LOT to be desired. It's great that you can see about two seconds into the future, but really, you need some help in longer term future predicting and character assessment. Way to legitimize that clone army in ep. II, BTW.

      Hey, does force push not work through a cockpit window? Too bad, Obi-Wan, because it would've really been helpful to push those little robots off your ship when they are about 3 feet away. Luckily for you they didn't just explode, like a normal weapon.

      sigh... Well, at least it is over and Lucas can get back to re-making episodes 4-6 with non-stop screen mayhem and spectacle, which is clearly what people are clamoring for. Right? Guys?

      (Yes, it is childish flaming; despite its flaws I thought the latest movie had a few good moments and was tolerable; at least it got a bit better as it went along)

      --
      "It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
    73. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Yes! That's it, thank you! I knew it was a one-word title but I also knew it wasn't Topkapi or Charade. (Also good movies.)

      Thanks for the memory refresh.

      --
      -- Alastair
    74. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1

      The easiest way to engineer a population of the willing is to sell the idea that the system functions as a democracy.

      No, there is one easier way to get a population of the willing - stop fucking with people and let them do what they want. It's a myth that people can't govern themselves. With modern education, communications technology and organisational techniques we're perfectly able to make the government near redundant.

      Top-down management is inefficient - distributed intelligence is where it's at.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    75. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      So what you're proposing is to create a nation of p2p commies? Why do you hate America?

    76. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Udo+Schmitz · · Score: 1
      I was only referring to his call for the revolution to overthrow governments that did not serve the people.

      Mmhhkay ... But didn't he say goverments per se suck?

      The Soviet Union was not a dictatorship. Well, not after Stalin died, anyway...

      Well, get a time machine to 1965. Go to Red Place Moscow and shout at the top of your lungs (for best effect in russian): "Chruschtschow sucks!"

      Hitler came to power, in part, because the country had been driven to poverty by the Treaty of Versailles. He turned the country around, built up a formidable military, "got the trains running on time," and gave his nation purpose.

      Urgh. Nope. Versailles had not as much to with poverty in Germany as the unfair distribution of wealth. Germany was in a far better economic position when he came to power compared to 1939. And about that "purpose" I would say he just triggered reactionary groupthink implemented in german minds throughout the Kaiserreich. Get Heinrichs Manns "Der Untertan", a relly good book about that topic ("Man of Straw" in english at Penguin Classics).

    77. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Isn't "the devil" supposed to be "100% evil"?

      "The devil" is an amalgram of a wide variety of wicked spirits, similar to how the US military amalgrates its enemy into "Charlie" or "Muhammad."

      You're losing theological credibility by forgetting something so basic to Christian teachings. But I'll let that slide and assume that you meant "Lucifer" or "ha'satan". (sorry, don't know the hebrew-english spelling).

      Lucifer is widey thought to be 100% evil, and we can even presume that God removed all goodness from him when He threw him down from heaven. (Presuming that there's no goodness in wicked souls is a bit presumptious and goes against mainstream christian thelogy, but still).

      Your argument is that, if God is 100% Good, and Lucifer is 100% evil, then we have a contradiction. In mainstream theolgoy, you're simply wrong because the creation of evil was the product of an imperfect being (Lucifer) choosing to defy perfect goodness (God). It's a fairly easy reconciliation, that no one really has a problem with save atheists looking for an excuse.

      Now, of course, there are certain theological arguments that don't hold God the Father as being 100% Good or Evil, and instead have God be "beyond good and evil" while Christ is 100% good. And still other arguments have God be both 100% evil and 100% good, and acting out the latter part becuase of His infinite wisdom instead of His innate nature.

      But I'm rambling.

      Even at the poles, good/evil are asymptotic, and fractally self-referential.

      You could say the same thing about Right and Wrong. What's your point? (That sometime an act benefits both another and yourself? That makes it right/good, not both good and evil.)

    78. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Sure, I use "the devil" to refer to "satan", and the various demons satan represents. They're all imaginary symbols, but theologically consistent - these spirits all derive from each other, with metonomy governing their poetic expression in scripturs. Just as Jacob wrestled with an angel to earn the name "Ysra-El" (Israel, "wrestler with god") in the Old Testament story, angels are god, demons are satan.

      I'm not arguing that God vs. Lucifer is an irreconcilable contradiction. I'm an atheist, and I understand the theology that satan is god's creation, to play the role of evil in god's great work of offering humans the glory of salvation through free will. I even agree with it psychologically, as a valid model, though not absolutely necessary or even the best alternative, let alone the only model. I understand that theology is a study of faith, which does not require contradictions be reconciled - there is a dialectic to a "100% good" god creating a "100% evil" devil that "serves the greater good". Even though I believe that such a model is really just an excuse for repression of people, especially by recasting conquered peoples' traditional gods as evil, while coopting some of their ethics for political utility.

      My point is that good and evil, right and wrong, are not identical dualities. And that in the realm of faith, they can be evaluated successfully in ways that would be unacceptably contradictory, if not within the context of faith - a nonrational system of knowledge that accepts such logical incompatibilities. The simple case of identity between good/evil and right/wrong dualities has been portrayed in fiction often enough that we feel like we understand it, that we relate to it. But too often, to the exclusion of other valid models, other interesting representations in fiction. Which are worth exploring, as life has many events perhaps better understood with a more complex model. The actual complexity at the limits of the traditional model itself show that life isn't as simple as the biblical models, and that we've got room to consider others. Which is why I'd like to see a space opera deriving its morality from a different text, and why Star Wars' moral message is inadequate to convince me, or to fully entertain me.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    79. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      I was especially disappointed when they turned out to STILL be working for sideous in the third movie despite the fact that they were double-crossed in the first movie and knew he was a dark jedi in charge of the senate in the second film.

      Dooku obviously knew, but there was no reason for him to tell the people he was leading that his boss was playing both sides.

    80. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Which at least finally left the door open for the idea that maybe the Republic was ineffectual and corrupt, and maybe the Dark Side was the right answer at the right time.

      They touched on that in the KOTOR games...the Mandalorians were attacking the Republic, and the Jedi took the "wait and see" approach while millions died. Two of the Republic's most promising young Jedi decided enough was enough, and beat the holy hell out of the Mandalorians, and turned to the dark side in the process. And then attacked the Republic as Sith. The second game got into this in more detail, but if some of the Jedi hadn't taken action, the Republic would have fallen. And it was theorized that Revan (one of the two young Jedi) tried to conquer the Republic not so much for the sake of power, but to prepare it for some unseen threat. Maybe she just saw the Yuza Vong gayness 4,000 years in advance.

    81. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      See i thought there was no reason for him to tell them who his boss was, but to tell them they've been double-crossed by a dark jedi who is in charge of the senate would be very helpful to maintain the conflict.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    82. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by eggsome · · Score: 1

      Totally agree, Tie Fighter was the best. Nothing compares.
      (secret order tatoos were cool).

      --
      If they made a movie of your life, would anybody buy a ticket?
    83. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Point the first:

      They're all imaginary symbols

      Calling something that someone else believes in, espeically when you have reasonable cause to know that they believe in it, is rude. Please don't do it. (This applies from the inverse; show me a christian telling an atheist that his free will is imaginary, and I'll react similiarly.)

      My point is that good and evil, right and wrong, are not identical dualities.

      For the most part, they are. There are a very, very few instances where "good" is not always the right thing to do, but doing right is always good, and every instance I can concieve of where doing good might be wrong can be dramatically argued to be different values of "how good" or "how right."

      Which is why I'd like to see a space opera deriving its morality from a different text, and why Star Wars' moral message is inadequate to convince me, or to fully entertain me.

      Don't go to the movies or television for the moral message. You'll never, EVER be satisfied. The mediums are simply too shallow and too staged for a moral message--and parables require a certain level of genius beyond that which can swallow the inequities to see a movie made.

      For space opera, Star Wars is amazingly complex and nuianced in its morality. But that's as much a coincidence as anything else. If Darth Vader being a ruthless horror-style character would have inspired as many ticket sales, you can bet he would have been the Sith that killed Qui-Gon and not Luke's father.

    84. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by stuktongue · · Score: 1

      Thank you for this clarification. I had the right idea, I guess... just the wrong dictator. :-)

      One can learn something new every day.

    85. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      If you tell me, an "atheist", that my free will is imaginary, I will be prepared to debate that with you - assuming that we don't agree. The imaginary, or rigorously real, nature of these objects of religious faith is central to the disagreement we're having. If you can't debate that, it's your perogative not to. It is not, however, your perogative to require that I act like they are something that I believe that they are not. Calling them imaginary might offend you, but that's your limitation. You're too sensitive, and perhaps insecure in your faith. Or you'd be willing to debate their reality.

      But now it's clear that your faith is the very popular one that equates right with good, and wrong with evil. I don't share that faith. So it's probably pointless to debate our differences on that point, unless you're willing to debate the underlying faith from which those definitions are determined.

      I think this difference between us is at the root of our disagreement about where it's worthwhile to look for a "moral message". I find that plenty of stories (and other content), in plenty of media, satisfy my desire for moral messages. Further, I find the same flaws you're citing in the media that I assume you accept for that purpose.

      Star Wars is quite complex, nuanced, and even moral for space opera, or a movie. But I am even more complex, nuanced and moral. In tiny part because I admired the Star Wars morality growing up. Whether Lucas actually changed any Star Wars plans in light of any advice from Joseph Campbell, the movie's "spiritual advisor", Star Wars fits into the morality that includes Old and New testaments, as well as several others in a broad western-Eurasian tradition. And Lucas seems to be basically a "good guy", as far as you and I know, and as far as you and I agree on "good" (probably 99%). But there's more to ethics than just that, especially in our complex multilateral world. At least for me. Each of us must choose our own paths. You have apparently chosen one that excludes others not 100% compatible with Christianity. I have chosen another, which excludes some Christianity, and includes some other moralities. So it's no surprise that you and I have different tastes in movies, especially ones so clearly moralistic as Star Wars.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    86. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Calling them imaginary might offend you, but that's your limitation. You're too sensitive, and perhaps insecure in your faith. Or you'd be willing to debate their reality.

      the answer to "that's offensive" is never, EVER "you're too sensitive."

      Our language has a wide enough variety that the precise word can always be used--and "imaginary" isn't the precise word for something someone believes to be true. Just as "kike" isn't the precise word to refer to a jew.

      That said.

      But now it's clear that your faith is the very popular one that equates right with good, and wrong with evil. I don't share that faith.

      It's not a faith. It's a definition. If Jeohvah is not Right, then He's not Good and Lucifer really is the way to go.

      My faith is "God is Good." Not, "good is godly", but the exact opposite derivation.

      If you'd like to continue this debate, I would welcome it. But I'd like to start with a simple question:

      Pick a situation that you think has "good" and "right" being different things.

    87. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Calling them imaginary might offend you, but that's your limitation. You're too sensitive, and perhaps insecure in your faith. Or you'd be willing to debate their reality.

      the answer to "that's offensive" is never, EVER "you're too sensitive."

      Offense vs. sensitivity is a negotiated position, within expected norms. There are Jews who are offended by being called "a Jew", rather than "Jewish". There are Africans (American and otherwise) who like being called "nigger", and others who don't - and others for whom it all depends on lots of complex, unpredictable factors. You can disagree whether or not your god is real, but I don't, and there's no other way to express our disagreement on that fundamental position. Although we can agree that we don't want to debate it, and respect one another's right to believe whatever we want. So long as we're clear that we disagree. But without arguing the source of morals, it's hard to know how to communicate about the nature of the morality itself.

      But I'm willing to try. What's "good" about creating a spirit which will lead a person into doing wrong things to another person? Maybe it's "good" to do that to the tempted person. But is it good for the person they wronged? And therefore, was it good to create the spirit? I'd say it's not good for anyone. But it is right - because it's all part of the plan for acting out our actual morality, instead of just talking about it all the time. By extension, satan does what god made satan to do, so satan is right, but evil.

      But that's just an exploration of the limits of the paradox of Christian morality. I'm more interested in morality beyond that. For a better discussion than I could produce, I recommend _Either/Or_, to which I referred in my original post in this thread. It discusses, with analytical rigor in a modern context, the limits of seeing decisions cast between two exclusive, opposing alternates. And in fiction, I find the choices made in even as facile a fiction as Roger Zelazny's "Amber" series to be more a reflection of adult challenges. But as I said, I'm interested in seeing more fictions which explore "nondualistic" morality. Just as I'm interested in seeing more "noneuclidean" geometry - which is like saying "more nontriangle shapes".

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    88. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      With interactivity and the personal intimacy of individual interaction, games are probably the better medium for representing complex morality stories.

      Um, no. Games are the worse (or worst?) medium for stories of any type. When has chess, football, poker, or paintball ever told at story?

      At best, a game can prehaps enable a player to create their own story... although even that's a stretch. But games can hardly represent a story at all... to the extent that existing games do so, it is by hybridizing with literature or cinema. But in those cases, the game itself is more like an obstacle that drags out the time before the next cutscene comes in to progress the story.

      PS. Do you know how nethack inserted Moorcock's Stormbringer into the game? Holding that sword disables the usual confirmation dialog before you enter combat.

    89. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      The anti-theism argument is always a fun one to watch, although you can't carry it nearly as well as in OCG's epic threads.

      But I'm willing to try.

      You're not trying to answer the one little thing she asked. That whole biblical self-contradiction thread, while amusing, is just irrelevant to Planesdragon's simple question. You made the counter-intuitive statement that "Good/Evil" != "Right/Wrong", which many people would dispute just as a matter of semantic definitions, regardless of their personal regliosity.

      Indeed, the only way I can justify that statement is to say that Good/Evil deals with perception, while Right/Wrong is about reality. An attempted good deed is actually wrong if honest mistakes bring it to a bad outcome.

      Wrongness can come from either evil or incompetence.

      What's "good" about creating a spirit which will lead a person into doing wrong things to another person?

      That's an interesting question, but separate from the topic of "Good!=Right". Because it relates to a supposedly omniscient/omnipotent being, there can be no question of incompetence or inadvertent results, so in that context, "Good" is exactly equal to "Right".

      Just as I'm interested in seeing more "noneuclidean" geometry - which is like saying "more nontriangle shapes".

      No, "noneuclidean" certainly doesn't mean "nontriangular". Circles and duodecahedrons, for example, are perfectly euclidean. And, noneuclidean triangles exist as a hypothetical math concept, although they are substantially different from triangles as we know them, since the sum of the 3 angles wouldn't equal 360 degrees.

      To "see a noneuclidean shape" is the kind of thing that sends Lovecraft's protagonists to Arkham Asylum... it's something that's just not possible in our known physical reality.

    90. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1
      You can disagree whether or not your god is real, but I don't, and there's no other way to express our disagreement on that fundamental position.

      So... you're an atheist who agrees that God exists? (You said that you don't disagree--or I'm just poking fun at grammar.)

      "Imaginary" is, in addition to being offensive, incorrect. Big Bird is imaginary--no adult thinks that he really exists as more than a character, and actor, and a costume. But the "ether" isn't imaginary--it just wasn't there.

      Call religion "false" all you want. Call it "fictious" or "incorrect" or "erroneous." But don't call it "fiction" or "imaginary", because the vast majorty of those that taught for followed a religion throught the millenia believed it to be true, and using the other words implies otherwise.

      What's "good" about creating a spirit which will lead a person into doing wrong things to another person?

      In cronological order:

      It adds to existance.

      It gives the spirit a chance to turn against its nature.

      It gives the first person a chance to face temptation.

      It shows the first person their weaknesses

      It gives the second person something to struggle against.

      It shows other people the limits of humanity.

      By extension, Satan does what God made Satan to do, so Satan is right, but evil.

      Lucifer does not do what God made him to do. In fact, he does just about the opposite. And the other various spirits are similarly created--born innocent, even if with wicked tendencies, and then having chosen to be what they are.

      You'll never get anywhere arguing right/evil in mythology. All we have are stories that were told and re-told by churches and churchmen that wanted to reinforce faith, and so there are reconciliations aplently.

      In the temporal world, no one creates a spirit, anyway. Got another?

      But that's just an exploration of the limits of the paradox of Christian morality.

      For more than fifteen centuries, the smartest and most intelligent people in the world had occasion to bend their mind to stretching the simple morality at the base of the gospel story into a very broad base of morality. Calling it "limited" is, well, showing about as much standing as a guy shilling a perpetual motion machine.

      As for arguing that morality is more than a binary state between good and evil--I agreed with that from the get-go. But the increased complexity of the middle does not in any part diminish the truth of the extremes.

      Yes, abortion is more than a black or white issue. But at the extremes we have no one agreeing that strangling a walking talking child is OK, and no one proposing to require childbirth.

    91. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      For the record:

      Interesting thoughts, but I'm a happily married *man*.

      Solemndragon's the one properly informally refered to as "she."

    92. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Er, those board/field games you mentioned differ from interactive, and especially roleplaying games (the ones mentioned in the posts to which you responded). In the ways most important to telling stories, especially morality stories: interaction, and assumption of a character. Online, interactive RPG's are in their infancy. But early successes, like Myst and (further back) Freak Show, were distinguished by at least slightly unconventional morality, as they framed the world in which the player interacts. Interaction with a world, without the real life stakes (only one life to risk), makes these kinds of games a good medium for morality evaluations. And much more fun than just winning or losing.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    93. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Maybe you don't understand the flaws in the big-picture god/satan duality that I revealed. Because they certainly show how "right" and "good" are not necessarily identical, or simple, in a religion where the "good" god creates the "evil" satan, for the right reasons. That's not a matter of perception, it's a matter of contradiction, in a system that values consistency. I might add the further example, related to your own suggestion, that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", which is not limited to christianity, but shows the limitations of oversimplifying morality.

      Your complaint about god being "omnipotent" relies on the catchall of monotheistic religion, but doesn't validate it. These godly actions are "right" and "good" only when you have faith that god transcends such contradictions. Which is a circular argument, one which I declined to indulge in the thread which you have now joined.

      And you're way off with your geometry criticisms. I didn't say that "euclidean" means "triangular". I said 'I'm interested in seeing more "noneuclidean" geometry - which is like saying "more nontriangle shapes"', which makes an analogy between euclidean geometry and triangles, to point out that considering "euclidean" as an all-exclusive norm in geometry is like considering triangles as an all-exclusive norm in shapes. And, by extension (as I mentioned), that "nondualistic" morality also treats "dualistic" with more exclusive privileges than is really appropriate, in the wide range of possible human experience and understanding. Additionally, when I said I'm interested in seeing more noneuclidean geometry, I meant the mathematical analysis - not actually noneuclidean visual experiences, like "parallel lines that meet". That's absurd, and clearly not the sense I expected to be understood, when the other, valid one is also communicated by those words. Which is why I won't go down the road of arguing about the ability to literally "see" noneuclidean geometry, like spherical geometry, when planning long, multipoint plane trips around the globe.

      Or bother to rephrase this post to use other words than "I said", when more precisely "I wrote". Such pernicious abuse of semantic differences in this informal venue destroy any real value of the discussion. Looking at your post's criticisms of unexpected meanings of my words that you inferred, it seems to me that you took less likely meanings as targets to criticize, rather than argue with the more likely meanings. So your selection of their semantic versions with logical weaknesses seems selfserving. While that style might offer some leverage in an argument before a swayable audience, they certainly don't let either of us benefit from the other's insight into these issues.

      To return to the point, I suggested reading _Either/Or_, or _Beyond Good and Evil_, for insights into nondualistic ethics. They said it better than I will in a Slashdot post, just as Riemann took geometry further than did Lovecraft.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    94. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Maybe you don't understand the flaws in the big-picture god/satan duality that I revealed.

      Oh, I fully understand them. But you haven't shown any way that they relate to the simple question of why you say "Good" is different from "Right". You're writing a tremendous volume of moderately interesting text with little-to-no evident relationship to the questions that were posed to you.

      And you just did it again.

    95. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      I said 'I'm interested in seeing more "noneuclidean" geometry - which is like saying "more nontriangle shapes"', which makes an analogy between euclidean geometry and triangles, to point out that considering "euclidean" as an all-exclusive norm in geometry is like considering triangles as an all-exclusive norm in shapes.

      Prehaps if you had matched up the quotation marks equivalently on both sides of the analogy, the original statement would have come closer to how you just explained it. (That is, you compared the adjective "noneuclidean" with the noun "shapes")

      But even re-organized, it remains a bizarrely non-informative analogy- an analogy of another analogy, and relying on esoteric knowledge of non-mainstream math to grasp at the point.

      Or bother to rephrase this post to use other words than "I said", when more precisely "I wrote".

      Say, verb: to express in words

    96. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Er, those board/field games you mentioned differ from interactive,

      Um no, board and field games are interactive.

      the ways most important to telling stories, especially morality stories: interaction, and assumption of a character.

      Um no, interaction and assumption of character are antithetical to telling stories. I am a game designer, and it bothers me when someone impresicesly praises a game for it's "story", when that's rarely what they actually mean. Games don't tell stories well, and there it's difficult to imagine how that might ever change.

      Of course, "enabling exploration of morality" is rather different than "telling moral stories", and a game might be appropriate for the former.

    97. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Interesting thoughts, but I'm a happily married *man*.

      Having noted that 52% of all humans are female, I make that assumption when gender is not otherwise indicated. And yes, I have conciously avoided reading slashdot user demographics that might override that statistic.

    98. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Big Bird is imaginary--no adult thinks that he really exists as more than a character, and actor, and a costume.

      Although some definitions of imaginary mention that the imagined object is considered real, others simply list it as synonymous with false. Consider the sentence: "I thought I saw your car leaving, but I guess it was just my imagination"- at the time the speaker imagined that false concept, she treated it as real.

      Also, some large proportion of the target-audience for Big Bird considers it real... the fact that millions do believe it is true does not (by itself) invalidate Doc Ruby's claim that the idea was generated in some charlatan's imagination.

      But the "ether" isn't imaginary--it just wasn't there.

      Modern scientists use the specific word "imaginary" to describe the concept of ether.

      Lucifer does not do what God made him to do. In fact, he does just about the opposite.

      When I write a computer program that turns out to do the opposite of what I made it for, people interpret that as a sign of my imperfection...

    99. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      No, you evidently don't understand them, because I have now explained them twice. Or understand that "simple questions" about fundamental contradictions in moral systems have somewhat complex answers. Because you merely refuse to acknowledge them, without meaningful rebuttal. In any case, I dismissed your circular argument in one or two sentences. The rest of my lengthy post was an indulgence in pointing out the selfserving nature of your flawed arguments. Which I just did again. For the last time.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    100. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Having noted that 52% of all humans are female, I make that assumption when gender is not otherwise indicated.

      Interesting. (And, to note, I certainly don't take offense at being called "she".)

      FWIW, you're conciously being grammatically incorrect. The gender-neutral term in English for a creature is "he", for no other reason than it's shorter and more men have been active in shaping the language.

      ("human" and "man" should have their definitions reversed, so that "human" and "woman" would both be the genders of man. Not that it would happen...)

    101. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      When I write a computer program that turns out to do the opposite of what I made it for, people interpret that as a sign of my imperfection...

      When you write an AI that does the opposite of what you intended it for, it's a sign of your success at creating AI.

    102. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I believe that god exists only in the imagination - even less "real" than Big Bird, which is also a character with a physical appearance. You believe that god exists in the physical world, doing miracles, hearing speech, having creating the Universe, as well as "in heaven", a state with some physical and some imaginary characteristics, but not strictly imaginary. I don't believe any of that - I believe that god is as imaginary as the tooth fairy.

      You might be offended by that statement, and believe that it is false. But there is no real reason to believe that god is anything more than imaginary. Lack of a reason isn't enough to deny people have faith in something - faith actually transcends reason, holding knowledge without logic or other rational basis. But your faith isn't enough for me to accept facts like "god is real", beyond the reality of one's imagination. And my expression of that state of affairs, as I fairly see it, might offend you. But so too are people offended when they believe in a tooth fairy, which other people deny, or that pi cannot be precisely stated in numerals, when the believe that mathematics is always exact. People get offended by Zen koans like "what your face looked like before you were born", when it conflicts with their belief in a simple, direct experience of familiar objects. Adults accept challenges to their beliefs without offense. In fact, wise adults always question our own beliefs, to ensure that they're strong, and truly held, rather than merely an accepted "conventional wisdom", a "free ride" on another's faith that is never truly accepted, but merely borne.

      As for "Lucifer", I think you're either inventing theology, or oversimplifying its inherent complexity to suit your argument. God created everything, in the story you believe. Including Lucifer. Lucifer serves god's plan, by tempting humans into doing what we know is evil. That's "his" job, and therefore it's right for him to do it. It's right for Lucifer to be evil. This contradiction makes sense in christian morality, because Lucifer, and god, are not humans - they need not embody the consistency of good/right vs evil/wrong that we expect of humans. In the story, only humans have "free will", the ability to "defy god", and that only according to some interpretations of the story. Other interpretations say that though humans have free will, god already knows what we will do - in a godlike way that does not prohibit the possibility that we will choose one or another of evil or good actions.

      Your "argument from authority" really holds no weight. For 15 centuries, some of the most successful intellectuals have helped build the edifice of Christian morality. Even neglecting the smartest people outside European society (India, China, South America and Arabia come to mind), these intelligencia have been almost exclusively bound to the Christian basis for intellectual work. Then there are the smart people, like Galileo and Copernicus, whose work was strong enough, at the right time, to challenge Christian official knowledge. If the Church hadn't been so effective in monopolizing learning and history, including murdering intellectual threats, those millennia would have featured even more intellectuals at odds with christianity. And as the Church's political power has waned, intellectuals at odds with Church dogma have hugely multiplied. All these facts demonstrate that the large number of Church intellectuals reflects Church political power, rather than intellectual validity. In other words, we're talking about self-selection, and a circular argument.

      To keep this interesting discussion going, I'd like to point out that there are many Christians in America today who require childbirth in the name of morality. The FLDS is only one: many christian cults operate the same way. Such mandatory childbearing is not only not exclusive of Christianity, but quite compatible with it, though of course far fro

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    103. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      I believe that god is as imaginary as the tooth fairy

      And that's why it's insulting. Not because you don't believe god exists, but because you relegate him to the level of the tooth fairy--a ribald lie told to children to get them to give up baby teeth.

      The tooth fairy is a whole different sort of fiction than a deity--those that tell their children about deities and take them to church every sudnay are not lying, and it's patently dishonest to imply that they are. Which the word "imaginary" does.

      I'm not upset that you don't believe, or that you think I'm wrong. You're more than welcome to both viewpoints. What upsets me is your insistence that you can make offensive, insulting word choices and I'm not supposed to respond or correct you.

      Mature adults can handle disagreement, but they also take the viewpoint of their audience into consideration and attempt to refrain from offending them if they can.

    104. Re:Yeah, so hard to cheer for Rebellion anymore.. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      God created everything, in the story you believe. Including Lucifer. Lucifer serves god's plan, by tempting humans into doing what we know is evil.

      That's not Lucifer. Lucifer is the angel who was put above all other angels, but then rebelled against God and so was cast down for his crime.

      The one you're thinking about is ha'sa'tan, whose hebrew name I constantly misspell. HST is not a devil or a specific spirit, but rather a title held by one of God's angels. It's a position in the divine court akin to a district attorney--a Good being who plays "devil's advocate"--a good act, and a rightful act.

      Humans that are tempted by ha'sa'tan may do evil, but their doing evil is wrong.

      In the story, only humans have "free will", the ability to "defy god", and that only according to some interpretations of the story.

      Yes, some Christian theology reserves free will for huamanity. But this does not in and of itself mean that non-human servants of God cannot go against God--it merely means that they alter their nature by doing so.

      By this theology, Lucifer et al either are nothing more than myths, or they are angels who chose to not be angels, and in doing so were the motive force that punished themselves.

      As I said, there are ample reconciliations already extant in Christian theology.

      Your "argument from authority" really holds no weight.

      It's not an argument from authority. It's a simple statement of completeness. An argument from authority would be "the church said so."

      You're welcome to keep trying to poke holes in Christian theology, of course. I'm merely poiting out that you'll more than likely come up short--just as I would if I tried poking holes in the theory of evolution, for example.

      (Oh, and btw--Galileo wasn't "brave." He was smacked around for actual heresy, not small things like "the world is round.")

      To keep this interesting discussion going, I'd like to point out that there are many Christians in America today who require childbirth in the name of morality.

      And your point is? Are you saying that childbirth is wrong? Or that abstinence is somehow morally wrong?

      Not only do most Christian churches not require childbrith, but most of those that do require it on a level not greatly exceeding population replacement--and many of the latter allow priesthood as an alternative to childbearing.

      How does christian morality judge the lives of, say, Russian children orphaned by Soviet purges of their Eastern Orthodox parents (on that religious basis), who became prostitutes or other criminals to survive

      By and large as tragic. And even those that rail against those that did not value their faith above their lives hold final judgement as something for God, not man.

      Or how about the Romanian nun crucified to death in an exorcism?

      Another tradgedy. Right action does not always lead to right results, and neither does good action.

      Or all the people tortured to death for insufficient faith during the Inquisition, at the hands of those with sufficient faith?

      The church is an imperfect thing, and has done evil acts. Those evil acts were wrong. What's your point?

      Our discussion was about the equivalence between the Christian idea of good and evil and the moral argument of right vs. wrong. You have so far failed to provide a temporal example that supports your argument.

  14. That seals it by portforward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When my three year old is old enough to watch the movies, I'll just show him IV through VI and skip the others. Finding out about the family relationsips, (as well as who Yoda is) is just too important, and the whole series suffers way too much. I liked episode III better than I or II, but watching Darth throw out his arms and arch his back screaming "NNNNOOOOOOOOOO" was terrible. As I left the theatre, I thought, "that is the last bit of new Star Wars I'll see. And it ended with a "NOOOOO!!!".

    1. Re:That seals it by Genevish · · Score: 1

      As if watching Luke cry "NOOOO!!!" in Empire was any better?

    2. Re:That seals it by Omnieiunium · · Score: 1

      That is right. When our kids are old enough. We will deny that SW Ep 1-3 ever existed. Along with that, why not through in every other crappy sequel ever made. The Matrix triology comes to mind.

      Seriously.. the NOOOOOOOOOO spoiled the whole movie.

    3. Re:That seals it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      And how would you expect to react when finding out that your wife died? By softly whispering, "yes" and then doing the moonwalk?

    4. Re:That seals it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Moonwalk? Hell I'd get my full on booty shakin' on then I'd be all callin' that cute little 19 year old and sayin stuff like hey baby turns out I'm free for a while you wanna get together and bump uglies and she'd be all hell yeah and your my daddy and shit and then we'd be ON TEH SPOKE and she'd help me out with my greased yoda insertions.

    5. Re:That seals it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      And how would you expect to react when finding out that your wife died? By softly whispering, "yes" and then doing the moonwalk?
      Hmm. My wife? ...

      Just kidding, honey!
    6. Re:That seals it by cwensley · · Score: 1

      Hm, I noticed that too, but I figured it was because he was just getting used to his suit.. You'd look funny too if you're arms and legs were cut off and had new mechanical body parts!! (;

    7. Re:That seals it by Adrilla · · Score: 5, Funny

      And how would you expect to react when finding out that your wife died? By softly whispering, "yes" and then doing the moonwalk?

      robert blake did.

      --

      "Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
    8. Re:That seals it by h3llfish · · Score: 1

      That was a truly awful moment in cinema history. I'm mostly a prequel trilogy apologist... but that was just bad. I did like how Vader lurched off his plaform just like Frankenstein's monster. The little shoutouts to old movies are cool.

    9. Re:That seals it by KillerDeathRobot · · Score: 1

      I would expect something a little more realistic than that. No one but cheesy fictional characters ever shouts "NOOOOOOO" in a non-ironic manner.

      --
      Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
    10. Re:That seals it by graveyhead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know what I find especially lame about the now infamous "NOOOOOOOO!!!" scene? It was delivered by James Earl Jones, not Hayden Christensen. James of course was responsible for making Darth Vader such a badass in Ep. 4-6. The fact that a distingushed professional as him could have delivered such a horrid stinky scene is highly dissapointing.

      Oh well, personally I'll just continue to enjoy those 3 great original movies and ignore the latest 3 stinkers.

      --
      std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
    11. Re:That seals it by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 2, Funny

      Pop quiz. Star Wars is:

      (a) Cheesy fiction.
      (b)Real.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    12. Re:That seals it by Gulthek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, Lucas really knows how to deaden the hell out of his talented actors' performances. He's a genius that way.

    13. Re:That seals it by LurkerXXX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hate to tell you, but I don't think James Earl Jones wrote the script or had much input into what his lines would be. He delivered the scene the way Lucas wrote it. Put the blame where it belongs. On Lucas.

    14. Re:That seals it by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      Richard Harris had the Albus Dumbledore part down perfectly -- just as himself, in an interview I saw shortly before the Sorceror's Stone movie came out. Just think what sort of directing "talent" it took from Christopher Columbus to screw that up.

    15. Re:That seals it by Cappy+Red · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the big problem with the "NOOOOO!" scene is the difference in Vaders. In the original trilogy, Vader was a cold, calculating, determined, evil badass. In the prequel trilogy, Vader/Anakin is a whiny, annoying, petulent ass. There is no "bad" involved in his prequel ass of any kind other than the old, "not good," variety.

      We don't see him become what he was in the original trilogy, we're left to assume that the intervening years actually made him an interesting character.

      That "NOOOOOO!" bit worked with the prequel Anakin, but not with the original Vader. Whereas Lucas might have intended that disconnect to be striking, I think it came off more off-putting and irritating than anything else.

      --
      This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
    16. Re:That seals it by guuyuk · · Score: 1

      I guess Lucas was watching "All My Circuits" when he was writing that scene... Calculon would be so proud!

      (or is it will be proud, I'm kind of confused on the timeline issue here)

      --
      We're sorry, the phone number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try your call again
    17. Re:That seals it by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      frankly, I'd like to have seen more badass things in the dark suit as vader to show he was EVIL. But I thought the scene came off OK... after all, the point of the scene was that the emporer had a total lock on anakin. The only thing he had to live for he took away himself! HE destroyed his entire live..by himself.. from this point on he's not just the Empororer's henchmen, but a "trusted" friend who is totally commited to only him.

    18. Re:That seals it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "last bit of new Star Wars"?

      Are you forgetting about that TV show Lucas is making chronicling the 20 years between episode III and IV?

      Qui-Gon: "Hey Obi-Wan, next thing I want you to do in your training is go to the Lars' and teach them how to change Luke's diaper." and hilarious hijinks ensue. Maybe a love triangle with a hot Aunt Beru in the middle of it? Or an episode where a young Luke learns to drive?

      Wow, how can Lucas writing a TV show not turn out great?

    19. Re:That seals it by dswensen · · Score: 1

      Uh, this is Slashdot. Everyone already does put the blame for everything on Lucas.

    20. Re:That seals it by portforward · · Score: 1

      Wow, the Vader on wheel of fortune was the funniest thing I've seen in a month. Thanks for the links!

    21. Re:That seals it by bani · · Score: 1

      No, James Earl Jones could have throttled lucas to death, then rewrote and delivered his lines so they didn't suck.

      So the blame ultimately lies with James Earl Jones. He blew his opportunity and SWIII is lesser because of it.

      What a shame.

    22. Re:That seals it by sheared · · Score: 1

      I didn't find the "NO" disturbing. He has just been told that he had killed the woman he had done all this to save, and he reacted. It's not like he was 15 years removed from the Anakin of about 15 movie minutes earlier. He was still the same kid, just in the cool-ass Darth Vader suit we have come to know and love.

      I figure that in 20 years, a lot of growing up was done - just with an evil, power hungry bent. Heaven knows what most 40 year olds would think if directly compared to their 20 year old self.

    23. Re:That seals it by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      Which begs the question: Can someone non-badass become a badass, or is badassery inherent? I say it's inherent and there's no way a whiny little bitch (Lucas has a thing for whiny little boys - think Luke...) like Annakin could become the awesome badass that is Vader.

    24. Re:That seals it by identity0 · · Score: 1

      A little OJ Simpson-style "touchdown dance" would have been cool, as well. Then, Darth could have led the Jedi on a slow-speed race across Coursecant...

      "If the helmet fits, you must acquit!"

    25. Re:That seals it by Cappy+Red · · Score: 1

      It's a tough road to haul, but it's probably doable.

      Consider Luke's transition from a New Hope through Return of the Jedi: idealistic(sub-whiny), to haughty (pretty whiny), to light-weight badass. He was pretty cold in Jedi(consider his entrance in Jabba's palace). Now, he was never the kind of ass-kicker that Vader was, but was none to shabby.

      Anakin just never got over his whininess. Luke lost an arm and seemed to get somewhat sobered by the experience. Anakin just got even more whiny.

      --
      This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
  15. Storm Troopers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At what point did the Emperor decide that it was time to change Storm Troopers into a zesty new outfit and cut back on the accuracy training budget?

    And when did they all get a new accent?

    1. Re:Storm Troopers? by hermit7323 · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that by that time, all of the clones had died (speed aging, right?), and that the Empire had begun to use normal people. (That Vosson't feller from the Bounty Hunter Wars is an example)

    2. Re:Storm Troopers? by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was hoping to see a scene in Episode III that showed the old/new suit even if it was just a prototype in the background; it would have been a nice touch.

      The new suit is awaiting your appraisal, Emperor.

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    3. Re:Storm Troopers? by NMerriam · · Score: 1

      Once the original supply of elite clones was "used up", they enlisted normal people into the stormtrooper corps. The clones were a big one-time order that took years to create, and presumably cost more than just paying some guy to stand guard duty.

      Of course, they were still spectacularly bad shots, but that can be somewhat explained by saying they had cheaper, mass produced government contract weapons that weren't as accurate. The rebels tended to use fewer, more precise and powerful weapons, while the empire relied on sheer numbers. Kind of like comparing an AK-47 to an M-16/M-4 in the skill required to effectively use and maintain the weapon on a daily basis.

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    4. Re:Storm Troopers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The more important question is why do they wear armor that can't even take one hit.

    5. Re:Storm Troopers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I noticed that in the original films that some of the storm troopers are just black and white, while others have orange patches like the clones in ep 2/3.

    6. Re:Storm Troopers? by Planesdragon · · Score: 1
      At what point did the Emperor decide that it was time to change Storm Troopers into a zesty new outfit and cut back on the accuracy training budget?

      Who said anything about cutting back on the training budget?

      Stormtroopers can hit--they just can't always hit the heroes. The *only* times stormtroopers lose in VI-IV is when they are facing a much smaller foe that maximises every strategic advantage--including misinformation.

      Off the top of my head:

      Stormtoopers destroyed the guards on the Organa friggate.

      Stormtroopers let Luke and co. "get away" in Ep. IV.

      Stormtroopers made short work of the rebels on Hoth & the guards on cloud city.

      Stormtroopers conquered Endor for a short while, and were only bested by a massive uprising by natives intimately familiar with the terrain.

      "who would win, red shirts or stormtroopers" is an old joke, but one made only by folk who don't make allowances for plot.

      (And, really, from Jango fett on they're not that good pilots, so Tie Fighters don't really count, do they?)

    7. Re:Storm Troopers? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Since no one else answered with a good answer here it is.

      Droids Accuracy for being a machine sucks.
      Clone troopers accuracy is a lot better than droids.

      rebel troopers will to survive to see their families again work very hard to maintain accuracy, and will to survive.

      Note the clone troopers are replaced with more clone troopers. The survivor's get replaced, and the kamonian's said that the first batch was done. how many more batches had been in the works for the past 10 years? maybe one a year, I know I would still have more troopers coming right after a war ended. Because you can't predict when a war will end.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    8. Re:Storm Troopers? by jbplou · · Score: 1

      Well there good shots in episode 4 unless they are guarding the death star. Because they clean up the rebels on the blockade runner in the very beginning and then Obi-Won notes there accuracy at the ranch later on. But when they shoot at a hero they can't even hit within a 10 foot radious.

    9. Re:Storm Troopers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I read somewhere that it's not supposed to stop blaster fire, but deflect it if it comes at an angle. I mean, current helmets aren't meant to stop bullets, either, and flak jackets saved a lot of lives in ww2 as well. Of course, considering all the shielded thingies around, one would think it'd be possible to have a fully shielded trooper for assaults and such. A single droideka would have wiped out all the storm troopers in the death star, I'm sure.

    10. Re:Storm Troopers? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Kind of like comparing an AK-47 to an M-16/M-4 in the skill required to effectively use and maintain the weapon on a daily basis.

      I'm not a soldier, but I have shot an AK-47, and my understanding is that, in many peoples' opinions (except for people in the US military), the AK is a superior battlefield weapon by most measures.

      First, the AK has a larger calibre (7.62 vs 5.56 mm), so it's more effective against armor and vehicles.

      Second, it was specifically designed by its Russian inventor to be very tolerant of poor manufacturing and insufficient cleaning. Basically, you can treat it like crap and it won't misfire. The M16 has much more precise machining, but it must be cleaned religiously so that it operates correctly. That's fine for a high-accuracy rifle you use at a firing range or maybe for hunting, but in a muddy battlefield this is the last thing you want in a weapon. Of course, the side effect is that the M16 is more accurate, but again, this isn't very important on a battlefield. This is an assault rifle, not a sniper rifle. It's meant for ground troops to use in close-in combat conditions. These ground troops, I might add, are ones which are not expert marksmen. It's more important for them to have a weapon which is supremely reliable, and is "good enough" in accuracy at short-to-medium ranges.

      More accurate weapons have their uses, such as by snipers, but that's not the mission of the M16 or M4.

      Even worse, the M4, being just a short-barrel version of the M16, has much worse accuracy, but still has the M16's other problems. What's the point of this weapon? But it's still too long for use in situations where you're sitting in a Humvee and have to jump out and shoot at someone. This is why the US military is dumping these crappy weapons and moving to German-made HK assault rifles and submachine guns. A more modern assault rifle with a "bullpup" configuration will provide good accuracy and very short length.

    11. Re:Storm Troopers? by 4me2no · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ooh... oooh! I've got a better theory...

      Due to blowing out the original budget on the enormous expense of the Jango Fett clones, they had to settle for a cheaper bounty hunter for the next batch.

      Of the bounty hunters, the cheapest of the cheap was a young Greedo who, as we know, is incapable of even shooting a stationary Han Solo from point blank range.

      This also goes along way to explaining why a bunch of two foot tall furballs can defeat an entire battalion of storm troopers.

    12. Re:Storm Troopers? by frankmu · · Score: 1

      damn, where's my "insiteful" mod point?

      --
      Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
    13. Re:Storm Troopers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The M16 *is* used for long(ish) ranged sniping in addition to close quarters.

    14. Re:Storm Troopers? by jimi+the+hippie · · Score: 1

      Having fired both an AK and an M16-A2 and having read articles on both, I can tell you that the M16 is not all that more accurate than the AK-47.

    15. Re:Storm Troopers? by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      The orange patches are for Sandtroopers, who are trained for desert environments such as Tatooine. Also, some of the clones in ep 3 have Imperial-style rank badges!

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    16. Re:Storm Troopers? by pssldt · · Score: 1

      Silly English pig-dog! They must have been French. Why do you think they had that outrageous accent? No go away, or I shall taunt you a second time...

    17. Re:Storm Troopers? by rjh · · Score: 2, Interesting
      First, the AK has a larger calibre, so it's more effective against armor and vehicles.
      False. The penetration of a bullet is closely related to its sectional density. A small round traveling at high velocity, such as the 5.56mm round, will have superior penetration over a large round traveling at a slow velocity, such as the 7.62mm Soviet.

      In fact, after the 1993 Mogadishu debacle, one of the things learned was the 5.56mm round overpenetrates human targets significantly. Somali insurgents were shot several times at close range with little effect, since the rounds were traveling clean through with little tissue damage.
      The M16 has much more precise machining, but it must be cleaned religiously so that it operates correctly. That's fine for a high-accuracy rifle you use at a firing range or maybe for hunting, but in a muddy battlefield this is the last thing you want in a weapon.
      False. The M16 needs daily cleaning in hostile environments, but as long as it receives that cleaning it's a quite reliable weapon. The original Vietnam unreliability was the product of the Army not sending cleaning kits to troops in the field, and substituting inferior ammunition for the stuff the factory specified. American troops are the best-trained, best-equipped in the world, and part of their training has always been religious attention to weapons care.
      Of course, the side effect is that the M16 is more accurate, but again, this isn't very important on a battlefield.
      False. The Soviets knew that the M16 had about 250m of effective range on the AK-47 and AKMs (550m versus 300m), and so every Soviet army fireteam was equipped with an SVD Dragunov designated marksman's rifle. (Contrary to popular belief, the Dragunov is not a sniper rifle; it was equipped to regular line troops, not snipers.) The Soviets would not have done this unless they were scared shitless of the 250m range advantage the M16 offered.
      Even worse, the M4, being just a short-barrel version of the M16, has much worse accuracy
      It loses about 200m of effective range, still managing to have a marginally greater effective range than the AK-47/AKM family. But it's still too long for use in situations where you're sitting in a Humvee and have to jump out and shoot at someone. False. The M4 has received a fabulous reception from line users because of its compact nature. It, along with the Canadian-made Diemaco clones, is the close-quarters weapon of choice for Western armies. The biggest complaint about the M4 is the 5.56mm round has anemic penetration when fired from the short barrel of the M4; it penetrates less than a 9mm. Perversely, this complaint is actually a virtue for close-quarters fighting, where overpenetration is a major concern.
      This is why the US military is dumping these crappy weapons and moving to German-made HK assault rifles and submachine guns.
      The USMC has abandoned the HK MP5N in favor of the M4 SOPMOD system. The XM8 is currently a hotly-contested weapon, and several educated observers don't think the XM8 has much chance of acceptance.
      A more modern assault rifle with a "bullpup" configuration will provide good accuracy and very short length.
      Modern weapons design is moving away from bullpup configurations. Field experience has shown that it takes significantly longer to reload a bullpup than it does a weapon of conventional layout. The German army abandoned the (bullpup) G11 weapons system for the (conventional) G36 weapons system. The British have re-equipped their paratroops away from the (bullpupped) SA80 and towards the Diemaco clone of the M4. French Foreign Legionnaires are abandoning the (bullpupped) FAMAS for the M4.
    18. Re:Storm Troopers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lucas original had it so Solo shot first, but had to change it because it didn't want Han to look bad. So Greedo didn't really suck, Lucas did because he didn't think things out properly first.

    19. Re:Storm Troopers? by 4me2no · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I did realise that in the original, Han Solo shot first... my original comment was suppose to be a joke about on how fans can explain just about any inconsistancy :)

      Somehow though, it has wounded up being modded as insightful... guess I'm just not funny, or some SW fans are more serious than I thought... :(

    20. Re:Storm Troopers? by lee1026 · · Score: 0

      unless if you are the leader on both sides, then it becomes extremely easy.

    21. Re:Storm Troopers? by Kuukai · · Score: 1

      The clones were a big one-time order that took years to create, and presumably cost more than just paying some guy to stand guard duty. That would makes sense if: 1) There wasn't an entire planet of one-dimensional characters who for whatever reason dedicate themselves to the clone and weapon makin' process. 2) The Empire wasn't an um... Empire. I mean, I doubt they're short on cash, but even if they were they could easily 0wn the planet into submission.

      --
      Sendou Wave Kick!!
    22. Re:Storm Troopers? by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Informative

      False. The M4 has received a fabulous reception from line users because of its compact nature. It, along with the Canadian-made Diemaco clones, is the close-quarters weapon of choice for Western armies. The biggest complaint about the M4 is the 5.56mm round has anemic penetration when fired from the short barrel of the M4; it penetrates less than a 9mm. Perversely, this complaint is actually a virtue for close-quarters fighting, where overpenetration is a major concern.

      False. Apparently, the M4 has quite a few complaints lately. 1) As you mentioned, the range is significantly reduced, thanks to the short barrel. 2) The barrel and forend rapidly overheat. 3) The shortened barrel increases the rate of fire, decreasing reliability.
      http://world.guns.ru/assault/as17-e.htm

      The USMC has abandoned the HK MP5N in favor of the M4 SOPMOD system.

      I don't know about this, but the MP5 is a submachine gun, not an assault rifle like the M4. They aren't in the same class.

      The XM8 is currently a hotly-contested weapon, and several educated observers don't think the XM8 has much chance of acceptance.

      From what I've read, the XM8 was getting positive feedback as of mid-2004.
      http://world.guns.ru/assault/as61-e.htm

      The German army abandoned the (bullpup) G11 weapons system for the (conventional) G36 weapons system.

      The G11 fired caseless ammunition, and never got very far past the prototype stage into actual use. This is probably due to its exotic ammunition and high cost rather than its bullpup configuration.
      http://world.guns.ru/assault/as42-e.htm

      The British have re-equipped their paratroops away from the (bullpupped) SA80 and towards the Diemaco clone of the M4.

      Where'd you read this? From what I've read, the problem with the SA80 is that it's flimsy and has shoddy quality. Again, not a problem with the bullpup configuration. But also, what I've read says the MoD is sticking to this weapon despite its obvious flaws.
      http://world.guns.ru/assault/as22-e.htm

      French Foreign Legionnaires are abandoning the (bullpupped) FAMAS for the M4.

      Any sources for this? From what I read, the FAMAS is a respected weapon.
      http://world.guns.ru/assault/as21-e.htm

    23. Re:Storm Troopers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Kind of like comparing an AK-47 to an M-16/M-4"

      Huh? You surely don't think the M-16 was/is a superior weapon to the AK?

    24. Re:Storm Troopers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Of the bounty hunters, the cheapest of the cheap was a young Greedo who, as we know, is incapable of even shooting a stationary Han Solo from point blank range.

      You try hitting your mark AFTER you've been shot dead from point blank range!

    25. Re:Storm Troopers? by tomlouie · · Score: 1

      New outfits came as a distraction during a restructuring of benefits. Yes, you worker bees no longer get a pension, but look, new outfits!

      As for the new accent, they outsourced.

      Tom

    26. Re:Storm Troopers? by rthille · · Score: 1

      "who would win, red shirts or stormtroopers" is an old joke, but one made only by folk who don't make allowances for plot.

      But that's the point. When the storyline has to alter 'reality' (stormtroopers ability to shoot) so blatantly that it's difficult to suspend disbelief just to support the plot, there's a problem with the script.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    27. Re:Storm Troopers? by rjh · · Score: 1
      I don't know about this, but the MP5 is a submachine gun, not an assault rifle like the M4. They aren't in the same class.
      It went to disprove the original comment of "This is why the US military is dumping these crappy weapons and moving to German-made HK assault rifles and submachine guns." The US military is not abandoning the M4; they're abandoning the submachinegun instead.

      Insofar as the reliability of the M4 is concerned, I'd suggest you read references other than world.guns.ru. Try Jane's, for starters. Or go to a nearby military base and find someone there who's accumulated lots of range hours with the M4; see what they say.

      The overheating problem is real, but a strong argument can be made that if you're finding yourself with an overheating M4, you need to worry more about your fire discipline than anything else. The M4 isn't a SAW and isn't meant for sustained volumes of fire.
      the XM8 was getting positive feedback as of mid-2004
      The Army has recently issued to contractors requests for more weapon prototypes which fit the exact same tactical niche as the XM8. Some commentators are viewing this as "the Army has really been sold on the XM8 and they want to see what other people can do". Others are viewing this as "the Army likes the idea of the XM8, but the HK system is inadequate and they want to see if anyone else can do better".

      The idea of a compact assault rifle is definitely one whose time has come. It's an entirely unresolved question whether the XM8 will be the next issue weapon.
      never got very far past the prototype stage into actual use
      I've seen German regular-Army troops outfitted with them in the early '90s. Field reports were less than glowing--the G11 had a pretty substantial problem with round cookoff--and the expense of German reunification diminished the German government's willingness to subsidize further revolutionary weapons design. For the money it would take to fix the G11, they felt it would be better to go with a conventional weapon with a conventional layout.
      Where'd you read this?
      Jane's for starters. Then I saw British paras toting around Diemaco rifles on CNN. As memory serves, the Foreign Legionnaires equipped with M4s came from Reuters News Service in the form of a photograph of a Foreign Legionnaire doing his job.
      The problem with the SA80 is that it's flimsy
      The problem is also that it's entirely unsuitable for left-handed shooters, due to the rifle's unhealthy habit of discharging brass straight down their necks. (How does the British Army get around this problem? By teaching left-handed shooters to fire from the right shoulder. This is the sort of thing that only works at the range, since as soon as you're getting shot at you're going to fire the weapon from the most natural-feeling stance...)

      The M16A2 doesn't have this problem, since the weapon action isn't right next to the shooter's face. Additionally, the bullpup design leads to such a butt-heavy weapon that Royal Ordnance decided to graft a dead weight on to the muzzle to balance it, despite the fact the rifle was already heavier than the M16A2. Now try telling a paratroop or a mountain trooper that they have to slog around for tens of miles each day carrying a huge, heavy pack and an extra pound of dead weight on their rifle.

      The flimsiness of the SA80 was quite real. I had the chance to get my hands on one about ten years ago. Squeezing the front furniture would cause it to separate from the barrel, and just by squeezing on the action you could keep the weapon from cycling.

    28. Re:Storm Troopers? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      For the money it would take to fix the G11, they felt it would be better to go with a conventional weapon with a conventional layout.

      Exactly my point... don't condemn all bullpups because one exotic weapon wasn't refined to the point where it outperformed conventional rifles.

      Additionally, the bullpup design leads to such a butt-heavy weapon that Royal Ordnance decided to graft a dead weight on to the muzzle to balance it, despite the fact the rifle was already heavier than the M16A2. Now try telling a paratroop or a mountain trooper that they have to slog around for tens of miles each day carrying a huge, heavy pack and an extra pound of dead weight on their rifle.

      Again, don't condemn all bullpups because this British p.o.s. is so poorly designed. If they designed it so poorly that squeezing the action stopped the weapon cycling as you stated, it certainly has other problems, and shouldn't be used as an example of the pinnacle of bullpup rifles.

      Have the HK bullpups had complaints like these? Being German-engineered, probably not. Everything I read on world.guns.ru was mostly positive about the HK assault rifles, but I'm not a regular reader of Jane's. The French FAMAS seemed to have a rather positive review as well.

      The Army has recently issued to contractors requests for more weapon prototypes which fit the exact same tactical niche as the XM8. Some commentators are viewing this as "the Army has really been sold on the XM8 and they want to see what other people can do". Others are viewing this as "the Army likes the idea of the XM8, but the HK system is inadequate and they want to see if anyone else can do better".

      The idea of a compact assault rifle is definitely one whose time has come. It's an entirely unresolved question whether the XM8 will be the next issue weapon.


      I don't know what the US Army thinks is going to come of this. If the HK system is really great, then why not use it? Are they waiting for the American firearms companies to come up with something new and revolutionary? Maybe they haven't noticed, but the firearms industry in this country has taken a real beating in recent years, like most other manufacturing industries (only worse, with such things as all the lawsuits by shooting victims). If I'm not mistaken, both Colt and S&W have totally gotten out of the regular firearms business, and now only sell special collectors' guns, a very low-volume business. Police departments buy most of their handguns from Glock, a swiss company. Like most other manufactured things, America as a society has decided that we're simply not interested in excelling in this area, so the Army might as well buy their weapons from someone who does.

    29. Re:Storm Troopers? by rjh · · Score: 1
      Exactly my point... don't condemn all bullpups because one exotic weapon wasn't refined to the point where it outperformed conventional rifles.
      I'm not condemning all bullpups because of any one failed system. I'm saying that the track record of bullpups is not all that great. The British Army is looking at replacing their L85A2s with G36s; they've already replaced their bullpupped SAW, the LSW, with the FN Minimi; the Bundeswehr replaced their early-adoption G11s with G36s; the Brits have already moved their Paras and SAS to the M4; the Foreign Legion has moved to the M4; the Australian SAS has abandoned the (bullpupped) Steyr AUG for the M4; Indonesia's Detachment 91 has moved to the M4; etcetera.

      Wherever I look, the world's special operations troops--even in heavily Kalashnikov-dominated nations like India, Pakistan and Indonesia--are moving to M4s. The only country I can think of that's moving the other way is China, which is introducing a bullpupped 4.85mm assault rifle (the Type 85?) for its troops.

      Anyone who says the future is bullpupped is not paying attention to the present.
    30. Re:Storm Troopers? by identity0 · · Score: 1

      Wow, I didn't expect a hard-core gun discussion on Slashdot : ) my two cents:

      The British Army is looking at replacing their L85A2s with G36s

      No they're not. They were thinking of it when they upgraded their old weapons for reliability, but now there are no plans to switch, AFAIK. Lots of people on the internet want them to switch, but no official source has said they're even looking at other designs. There are no trials for new weapons at present in the UK, like the US XM8 or SCAR trials.

      they've already replaced their bullpupped SAW, the LSW, with the FN Minimi

      Because the LSW was magazine-fed, while the Minimi is belt-fed. Most armies that can afford better are ditching magazine-fed SAWs. The German army is replacing their G36 SAW with a belt-fed weapon from HK similar to the Minimi, for example.

      the Bundeswehr replaced their early-adoption G11s with G36s;

      Because it was just too expensive, especially coming at the end of the cold war. They could not justify the expense to the public, esp. since the rifle was rather experimental and would have nessecitated a new, non-Nato standard ammo. When it came time to replace their aging G3s, they chose the safe, conservative not to mention cheaper G36. The fact that G11 was bullpup was the least of its problems.

      the Brits have already moved their Paras and SAS to the M4

      Source? I just looked on the mod.uk website, and there are no listings of the M-16/M-4 as part of their kit. I looked on the images database, and I can only find pics of paras with L85s, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of them have AKs while they train locals, but no M-4s, M-16s, or C7s.

      the Foreign Legion has moved to the M4; the Australian SAS has abandoned the (bullpupped) Steyr AUG for the M4;

      Okay, Australian SASR seems to have gone M-4, but looking around on the web I can find no confirmation of the others. This gallery shows French SF in Congo with both FAMAS and M-4, while this shows French FL with FAMAS and no M-4s in Ivory Coast, this gallery shows Indonesian special police with a mix of AKs, FNCs, AUGs, and Uzis.

      I think a lot of the above are just examples of how special forces people get more choice in arms, and some carry different arms because of personal taste or tactical circumstance. Many SF soldiers will carry AKs, MP5s or M-14s, that does not mean they are superior weapons to equip a whole army with.

    31. Re:Storm Troopers? by rjh · · Score: 1
      Because the LSW was magazine-fed, while the Minimi is belt-fed.
      In addition to ongoing problems with the Enfield which, while they were able to rectify with the L85A2s, they were not able to rectify with the LSW.
      This gallery shows French SF in Congo with both FAMAS and M-4
      My memory was in error; it was French SF I was thinking of.

      I stand by my original statement: the bullpup design is not the revolution which its proponents claim, and it's quite premature to claim the death of the conventional rifle layout.

      Re: my source for British Paras with M4s, as I said earlier, I've seen them on CNN. I can't give a link, obviously, but I've seen them on the nightly news. Friends in service with American Ranger battalions have confirmed that they've seen British paras and SAS in-theater in the Mideast with M4s.
    32. Re:Storm Troopers? by identity0 · · Score: 1

      The problem is also that it's entirely unsuitable for left-handed shooters, due to the rifle's unhealthy habit of discharging brass straight down their necks. (How does the British Army get around this problem? By teaching left-handed shooters to fire from the right shoulder. This is the sort of thing that only works at the range, since as soon as you're getting shot at you're going to fire the weapon from the most natural-feeling stance...)

      The M16A2 doesn't have this problem, since the weapon action isn't right next to the shooter's face. Additionally, the bullpup design leads to such a butt-heavy weapon that Royal Ordnance decided to graft a dead weight on to the muzzle to balance it, despite the fact the rifle was already heavier than the M16A2. Now try telling a paratroop or a mountain trooper that they have to slog around for tens of miles each day carrying a huge, heavy pack and an extra pound of dead weight on their rifle.


      Is this really an issue? Armies have been training people to fire right-handed for decades, since you can't use most bolt-action rifles left-handed. And I've known someone who has fired the M-16 left-handed, he said that while the brass didn't hit him, the gas did. The ideal solution would be more like the AUG, where you can convert to left-hand use and case ejection. No problems with brass or gas there.

      And the balance issue with the SA80 does not seem to crop up on the AUG or FAMAS, which are in use by more forces than the SA80. It probobly has to do with them making the rear out of metal instead of plastics like the others.

  16. Suitability by Alphanos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Am I the only one who thinks that the Star Wars movies aren't really something that a 7-year-old should be seeing? This isn't some crack about the movies' quality, I'm just thinking that some of the scenes in these movies are very dark and scary for a 7-year-old.

    --
    Alphanos
    1. Re:Suitability by emidln · · Score: 1, Troll

      I think I speak for the rest of slashdot when I say that you are alone. Remember the Nightmare on Elm Street series and other slash'em classics? I, like everyone else I know, was watching them at 7 years old. Except for one of my friends whose parent's were Right Wing Christian Nutjobs and she didn't watch anything R rated until she was 16. The kids will be fine. /is right wing and christian, but the people I'm talking about were true nutjobs. Their child is still recovering from brainwashing and might just forgive them after a couple years of therapy.

    2. Re:Suitability by kg4czo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think we shield our children way too much here in the US. A 7 year-old can watch a movie with a graphic part in it and not have problems with it, but some people don't realize this and try to "protect them for their own good." I say let them watch the movie if they really want to. It'll be less violent than turning on the news....

    3. Re:Suitability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Censored versions of the classics that my parents used to read out to me ta bedtime and Star Wars are some of the best memories I have of childhood.

      There are some things that are best kept from kids - they're just not engineered to understand sexual content and too much exposure can screw them up during adolescence while they have to deal with tough new emotions.

      But too much has become dumbed down about childhood. All the cool equipment has gone out of the playgrounds. There's no reason to try and shield them from good stories. Seeing Han shoot first was one of my most striking childhood memorie. It made Star Wars stand above the picture book stories we had at school at the same age.

      Which links back to that inevitable point to come up in any thread about star wars: while here was some nice candy in episode 3, but it didn't make things right. Lucas has lost sight of the spark that he used to make Star Wars the thing that we loved.

    4. Re:Suitability by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Scary? I can understand not wanting to show you kids something violent. I can understand not wanting to show them something sexual. But scary? For goodness sakes if at 7 years old they can't watch a scary movie somethings wrong.

      And that's assuming that there's ANYTHING in Star Wars that's scary. When I was seven I could watch most horror movies and have a good time (only movie my parents wouldn't let me watch was the Excorcist, which I didn't get around to watching until I was 17). I think you give these children far too little credit.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    5. Re:Suitability by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

      Wow, you must have excellent memory! I can only remember back to when I was seven-eighths.

      --
      Fnord.
    6. Re:Suitability by kylemonger · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I think I speak for the rest of slashdot when I say that you are alone.

      Oh, no you don't! That scene at the end with Anakin being roasted alive would have given me nightmares for a month at age 7. If a 7-year old can watch something like that without flinching then maybe TPTB have a point about kids' exposure to violence.

    7. Re:Suitability by russellh · · Score: 1

      I don't think children are actually shielded much. Children need explanations for what they see, otherwise they may draw harmful conclusions. It is better for the kids to watch something with parents who explain things than for them to encounter them on their own without the context a parent can give that experience. Let them watch the movie, but talk about it with the kids. That's the most important part. Ask them what they think, listen to their questions, and answer them honestly.

      --
      must... stay... awake...
    8. Re:Suitability by aonifer · · Score: 1

      I saw the first two when I was three and ROTJ when I was seven. I was more scared by E.T.

    9. Re:Suitability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has never been that children are becoming more and more desensitized because of increasing exposure to violence. It's what some groups like the PTC propose to do about it that's the problem.

      For example, censoring is a bad way of "protecting" future generations. There are other ways of doing it that doesn't involve trampling over anyone's freedoms and rights. But I have a nagging feeling that these people attempt to shift responsibility for their children's behavior away from themselves because they just don't know how to teach their children.

      Regardless, parents should be responsibile for their child's upbringing. Children should be responsible for their actions. Part of the parents' responsibility is to get this across to the children.

    10. Re:Suitability by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      To be honest I would of laughed my head of at it when i was that age , i found it more disturbing now than what i would of way back when i was a 7 year old. Kids are allot more resilient to these things
      Just look at Tom and Jerry , god that has some massive amounts of violence in it , kids (well boys , can't speak for women here) love that stuff , Decapitating my little ponies and barbie dolls etc.
      Only one film really got to me when i was around that age , and that was water-ship down which really made me uneasy with all the psychotic bunny rabbits and heavy Symbolist imagery .

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    11. Re:Suitability by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 1

      Shit, that scene STILL gives me nightmares, and I'm 18!

      --
      Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
      Africus aut Europaeus?
    12. Re:Suitability by drsquare · · Score: 1

      The whole point of Star Wars is to sell merchandising to 7 year olds. That's the target audience. Why else do you think the plot was so simple and clichéd, the dialogue so unintelligent and embarassingly cheesy, the special effects vulgar and over-done, and the acting wooden? That's the sort of thing which appeals to 7 year olds, who then beg their parents for a Darth Vader toy for Christmas.

    13. Re:Suitability by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you know what movie scared me the most when I was little? It wasn't one with violence -- it was Beetlejuice. All that freaky dead-people-stretching-their-faces shit just weirded me out.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    14. Re:Suitability by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      It kind of freaked me out during my college days for slightly difrent reasons (Begins with an L ends with an SD). Though that was definantly a very screwed up movie if you think about it

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    15. Re:Suitability by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1
      i was never allowed to watch care bears again.

      At least something good came out of it. Hate to think what she thought of Wizard of Oz, though. Seems like so many extremely religious types get hypersensitive about the media, thinking everything is a seditious conspiracy to corrupt themselves and their children. Some spiral down into armed camps which growl at the world (don't drink the koolaid), while waiting for Doomsday.

      Somehow, I don't think this is what Jesus had in mind.

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    16. Re:Suitability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember watching "you cant do that on television" on nickelodeon, one of the characters said "i hate you" to his mom, my mom banned me from watching that show. I was watching a Care Bears movie once, there was a witch or something who cast a spell while mixing a cauldron. My mom flipped out, yelled at my dad for renting it, cussed out the rental place, and i was never allowed to watch care bears again.

      ...and yet she had no problem letting you watch a film where they BLOW UP AN ENTIRE PLANET FULL OF PEOPLE?

      Just a wild guess, but you wouldn't happen to be from the USA, would you?

    17. Re:Suitability by Young+Master+Ploppy · · Score: 1
      Yeah, you know what movie scared me the most when I was little? It wasn't one with violence -- it was Beetlejuice
      You know what scares me more than any movie? The fact that one of my "peers" just said that they were little when they watched Beetlejuice! Crap, I'm getting old...
      --
      http://instantbadger.blogspot.com
    18. Re:Suitability by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Well, if it makes you feel any better I'm a college student, so I might not quite be your "peer" yet.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  17. DVD Box Set by coop0030 · · Score: 1

    I am actually very excited for the full 6 episode dvd box set (probably HD DVD/Blu-Ray when it is released). I am going to watch them all in succession. I want to wait a while though so I can see everything like I would for the first time (I forget things easily).

    There are some more links in his blog that are very interesting, especially the one that is about Uncle Owen not recognizing C-3PO.

    1. Re:DVD Box Set by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      (I forget things easily).

      Yeah. Incipient Altzheimer's will do that, all right.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:DVD Box Set by dumbfounder · · Score: 1

      droids aren't exactly highly regarded by most, and there are tons of duplicate models, so I don't think it's a stretch that threepio isn't recognized by Owen. By Obi Wan maybe, but Owen looked like kind of a retard, and it's not like they had time to get all chummy drinking beers and whoring it up.

      I can't read the stupid messed up text thingy that I need to enter to prove I'm not a bot.

  18. Always in the order written by DrRobert · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I always read things and watch series in the order they were written, not in the order of the books. It is better to watch Star Wars this way, read the Foundation series this way, and just about anything I can think of. In this way you follow the natural creative process of the writer rather than an artificial storyline; you grow with the writer and the story, the last three Star Wars movies certainly don't flow like Lucas wrote them all at the same time, maybe he had a vague treatment...

    1. Re:Always in the order written by Arker · · Score: 1

      IIRC he started with a 'treatment' of the entire series in chronological order. But when he tried to get funds to produce them, no one was interested in the first three, they were just too bad. Finally he got the money to make one - on the condition he skipped over the first three.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    2. Re:Always in the order written by MyNymWasTaken · · Score: 1

      don't flow like Lucas wrote them all at the same time, maybe he had a vague treatment...

      That is what he has said all along. The books for the mythical ep. 7-9 aren't sitting around gathering dust in his desk.

    3. Re:Always in the order written by zerocool^ · · Score: 1


      I'd like to add: The Chronicles of Narnia.

      I mean, it would make sense to start with The Magician's Nephew, and work your way to The Last Battle, but... it is somehow more fulfilling to read them in the order written.

      I also wouldn't read the Silmarillion before The Lord of the Rings.

      ~Will

      --
      sig?
  19. spoiled? no. by MORTAR_COMBAT! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a pity the end of Empire has been spoiled.

    Now instead of surprise it will be irony, as the audience knows what Luke does not. The audience also is left ahead of time wondering why Obi-Wan lies to Luke about his father.

    Spoiled? Perhaps, in a way. But also brings up other things which are potentially interesting.

    --
    MORTAR COMBAT!
    1. Re:spoiled? no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The audience also is left ahead of time wondering why Obi-Wan lies to Luke about his father.

      He didn't lie, he just spoke in a metaphor. I hate people who do either though.

    2. Re:spoiled? no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but the younger generation will never know the greatness that is:

      "Luke ... I ... am your father"

      No amount of irony is worth losing that plot twist!

    3. Re:spoiled? no. by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 1

      Does the audience know? If nobody told you, and you watched the episodes from I to VI, would you catch on at the beginning of IV that Luke was one of the children at the end of III? You might make an educated guess (I guess the heroic musical theme might give it away), but it wouldn't even have any real evidence until Luke turns out to be strong in the Force, and you couldn't be certain until the famous revelation. You might even guess Han at first (wouldn't that be weird!).

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    4. Re:spoiled? no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a pity the end of Empire has been spoiled.

      I thought this too when i read the play Macbeth for my english class. except it was not about the empire it was that i had already read the story a few years earlier for another class. Shakespear had an interesting writting style in which things were clearly foreshadowed, or you read conversations with the other characters that gave you a better understanding than any of the characters. and i was thinking that this is a style that maybe should be revisited. all current style movies show the characters saying " and here is the plan ..." they blank out and you watch as the plan unfolds. it is nice to try another style for once in a modern movie. while the movie had bad dialouge it did have a decent story line. yes the paralell of the roman republic/empire was a well known tale, lucas did a good job of implying that this is where he thought bush was going with the current state of things. which i admit is the movies one redeeming characteristic.

    5. Re:spoiled? no. by JJC · · Score: 1

      Episode 3 SPOILER below...



















      At the end of Episode 3, the children are named by their mother and placed with their foster parents.

    6. Re:spoiled? no. by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 1

      Oops, I guess the tattoine moisture farm might also be a big giveaway. Oh well.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    7. Re:spoiled? no. by sammy+baby · · Score: 1
      Does the audience know? If nobody told you, and you watched the episodes from I to VI, would you catch on at the beginning of IV that Luke was one of the children at the end of III?

      Are you serious?

      At the end of Episode 3, baby Luke is left on the planet Tatooine with two people who are identifed as Owen and Beru Skywalker. Obi Wan says he will stay nearby to keep an eye on him.

      Episode 4 opens in the skies above Tatooine. We are quickly (re)introduced to Luke, who makes references to his "Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru," and soon meets up with "Old Man Kenobi."

      Kenobi gives him a lightsaber, and says that it belonged to Luke's father, his former apprentice.

      Granted, it would have been a great plot twist if it had actually turned out to be Han, but... come on now.
    8. Re:spoiled? no. by wmansir · · Score: 2, Informative
      Nope, no real evidence. Unless you count his full name, Luke Skywalker, which is given well before the reveal. And this Luke Skywalker happens to be living with Owen and Beru, the same people Obi-wan is seen giving baby Luke Skywalker at the end of EpIII. And the fact that Obi-wan said he would watch over baby Luke and he just happens to live close to this other Luke. And he's about the right age, considering how much Obi has aged. And he doesn't know his father, except that he was a great pilot and jedi.

      It's really all just circumstantial.

    9. Re:spoiled? no. by tunesmith · · Score: 1

      Huh. Why *did* Obi-Wan lie to Luke? The only motivation I can think of is to protect him from heartbreak.

      Maybe it's just that Obi-Wan firmly believes that Vader has to die, and that it would be more difficult for Luke if he knew he were his father. After all, Obi-Wan saw no evidence of Anakin's more human motivations, like saving Padme.

      --
      skkkoooonnnggggkkk ptui
    10. Re:spoiled? no. by XO · · Score: 1

      Actually, I kind of figured that if there were to be 7,8,9... we'd find out that Han was actually a Prince, .. er, i mean was actually in tune with the Force, and could've whooped Luke's ass if he believed.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    11. Re:spoiled? no. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      You know, I'm still waiting for them to come out with that flamethrower...

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    12. Re:spoiled? no. by XO · · Score: 1

      i'd take the T.P. too. But I'd really love to be able to see the movie before it was completed!

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
  20. Children and RotS by SpooForBrains · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Slightly off topic, but this guy mentions that his kid has watched RotS twice (I think it was).

    My four year old girl has started expressing a MAJOR interest in all things Star Wars since seeing, for some reason, a Darth Vader poster (I hope that doesn't say something disturbing about her bugeoning subconscious).

    I have sat with her and watched A New Hope, which she thoroughly enjoyed, but having seen Sith myself, I think the scene of Anakin's "disfigurement" was a wee bit much for a child of her age, and I don't know how mature this guy's seven year old is, but is ANY child of that age ready for something like that?

    --
    "The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
    1. Re:Children and RotS by SpooForBrains · · Score: 1

      No, just ANH so far. Normal loss of life/limb she can cope with (she's seen plenty of Buffy and she loves the new Dr Who) but that scene was *very* graphic.

      I pondered taking her and then asking her to look away at that bit, and she would, but I know that'd make her even more curious. :)

      --
      "The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
    2. Re:Children and RotS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      usual answer is it depends on the kid.

      i would imagine most kids can handle some nasty imagery by the age of 7, so long as it's explained to them in advance that's just pictures and they have a reasonable sense of make believe vs. truth.

      might be easier on them to wait for the DVD to come out; seeing gory stuff on a small screen during the day when you can hit pause and talk about it and go have some cookies instead is a lot easier on them than a theater environment. Plus they're used to tv/dvd's being make believe; unless they spend every saturday at the cinema the strange environment might fail to fully activate their budding skepticism.

    3. Re:Children and RotS by LearnToSpell · · Score: 1

      A family of about 10 went, all below the age of 10? They're not even breeding properly anymore. Damn these clones! Noooooooooooooooooo!!!

    4. Re:Children and RotS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I took a gamble and took my 5 year old. I expected to look over at him after that scene to see him scared but he just gave me a 'what dad?' look. After the movie I asked if that scared him and he thought for 20 seconds and said 'um no'. I think he had to recall it in his head so it couldn't have been that traumatic. What's funny to me is taking him to Nemo when it came out scared the crap out of him. He was 2 years younger but it was G. For a 3 year old that movie is a bit of a roller coaster. Boy they grow up fast...

    5. Re:Children and RotS by Seumas · · Score: 1

      What kind of wussy kids are parents raising these days?

      Dude, I watched all of the Nightmare on Elmstreet movies when I was four years old. And guess what? I haven't ever killed anyone or intentionally caused harm to anyone. Pretty amazing huh? Who would have thought?

    6. Re:Children and RotS by drxenos · · Score: 1

      My daughter is 13 and I almost covered her eyes during that scene. If it went on a split-second longer, I would have. And I consider myself pretty liberal about what I let her watch.

      --


      Anonymous Cowards suck.
    7. Re:Children and RotS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, but you ended up as one of those people who refer to "wussy kids", which is itself something I hope my children never end up as. ;)

      On a serious note, the concern for my child would be nightmares. Maybe YOU didn't have a problem, but my little brother couldn't watch anything remotely scary without having nightmares. Me on the otherhand, loved scary movies. The first one to give me a nightmare was Alien, and the last one to give me a nightmare was Pet Cemetary(I was 17, LOL, but it didn't stop me from watching it again). The point is, kids are different. You can't treat them all the same.

    8. Re:Children and RotS by CristalShandaLear · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think the scene of Anakin's "disfigurement" was a wee bit much for a child of her age, and I don't know how mature this guy's seven year old is, but is ANY child of that age ready for something like that?

      After Episode One, my 12-year-old daughter really got into the series, watching Episodes IV, V & VI over and over again. These remain her favorites. The month before Episode III she watched them all in the order they were made.

      The part that was hard for her was the slaughter of the Jedi. She cried and was so upset we had to leave the theater for a while.

      She was sad and angry enough to want to kill Anakin, and she was frighteningly glad Anakin got his legs burned off. She said, "he deserved worse than that for those kids," and she didn't say a word else the rest of the day.

    9. Re:Children and RotS by pnatural · · Score: 1

      but is ANY child of that age ready for something like that?

      I have a four year old boy, and I would say that he's ready to watch something like that.

      You see, ever since watching his first television and movie shows, we've been explaining how things on TV are not real. We make careful distinction in our speech between actors and the characters they play. For instance, he knows that there is a boy named Toby that plays Peter Parker in the Spider-Man movies. I can't be 100% certain, but I think he's come to understand that he's not seeing reality in a movie.

      We've also taught him about death ("Kill those mosquitoes, boy!") and we've taught him to ask questions. All in all, I'd say my boy's ready.

      But will he see RotS? Not a chance, at least not this year while it's in theaters. I'm keeping it from him primarily because we don't watch a lot of TV (boob-tube in our house) or movies. Instead we emphasize books and outdoor activities. Also, I'd rather he have a chance to appreciate the series in order... I don't know if that means 4-5-6-1-2-3 or 1-2-3-4-5-6... haven't decided.

    10. Re:Children and RotS by hummassa · · Score: 1

      I am the oldest cousin in my mother's side of the family, and when I got my driver's license, I used to take all my cousins (2 boys and 7 girls, ages 7-12 at the time) to the movies.

      --
      It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
    11. Re:Children and RotS by h3llfish · · Score: 1

      It's not even the gore so much, but the psychological horror that gave me nightmares (and I'm 33 year old man). That pov shot where the visor slides over his face is just chilling. He's a prisoner of his mistakes. It was the most powerful moment of the PT, to me... until the NOOOOOOO ruined it.

    12. Re:Children and RotS by krymsin01 · · Score: 1

      Your post reminds me of my childhood, growing up watching Full Moon movies. Cheesy, I know, but when I was young Puppetmaster et al scared me. The cool thing about those movies is that after the feature they had a featurette detailing how they made the SFX. What I'd do was usualy watch the featurette and then watch the movie, knowing how everything was done.

      --
      stuff
    13. Re:Children and RotS by Seumas · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with having nightmares?!

      Kids will stop watching scary stuff if they know it will give them nightmares (and the nightmares bother them that bad). Children are pretty damned resiliant. And just like a kid won't starve themselves to death - no matter what kind of tantrum they're throwing - they won't keep watching scary movies if they can't handle them.

      Oh - there will be nightmares whether or not there are scary movies or books. That's just life. I don't think many kids are too fragile for that.

    14. Re:Children and RotS by Ninwa · · Score: 1

      You should be proud of her sense of justice but slightly concerned for her ability to distinguish a show from reality.

    15. Re:Children and RotS by digidave · · Score: 1

      My four year old son has seen Sith and liked it, but it's not his favourite (Empire... is his fav).

      Children of that age aren't really aware of the outcome of violence. To him, Obi-Wan beat Anakin and Anakin got really hurt and had to be put in a special suit. He has no concept of being burned alive, so it wasn't traumatic for him.

      I think the movie is much worse for slightly older children, especially those who understand the implied violence such as when Anakin killed the younglings. That flew right over my son's head.

      --
      The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
    16. Re:Children and RotS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naw... you should just be proud of her sense of justice. I am quite sure she realizes its just a movie.

    17. Re:Children and RotS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm.

      You're supposed to take a date, not your cousi...

      oh wait...

    18. Re:Children and RotS by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      but is ANY child of that age ready for something like that?

      Yes. Not all children but most children would be perfectly fine with it.

      I remember loving the melting face scene from Indiana Jones as a youngster as well as a bunch of other gory scenes from then popular movies (oh, like the troll peeling its own skin off and turning into a dragon in Willow). But then I also liked a lot of non-gory stuff, like Anne of Green Gables at the other end of the spectrum. As far as I know I'm not terribly traumatized. I do work in a library though, does that mean something?

    19. Re:Children and RotS by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      My daughter is 13 and I almost covered her eyes during that scene. If it went on a split-second longer, I would have.

      You aren't serious.


      And I consider myself pretty liberal about what I let her watch.


      You can't be serious.

    20. Re:Children and RotS by sysop · · Score: 1

      Consider the effects of peer pressure, and ask yourself what will happen to children who DON'T get to see RotS.

    21. Re:Children and RotS by Cruciform · · Score: 2, Funny

      Meanwhile your family has gone through 634 mattresses and 853 pairs of bedwetting diapers :P

    22. Re:Children and RotS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude. Freddy vs. Jason came out last year. You mean you are 5?

    23. Re:Children and RotS by msaulters · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm 31, and I almost covered MY eyes during that scene. C'mon, are we THAT desensitized??? It was AWFUL and heartbreaking. It was ONE thing that Lucas got right, and it should not be the kind of thing that children are taught to laugh at, and there WERE children in the theater laughing at that scene when I watched it.

      And I AM serious.

      --
      These people looked deep into my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined.
    24. Re:Children and RotS by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The part that was hard for her was the slaughter of the Jedi. She cried

      Hell, so did I. My seven year old was fine.

    25. Re:Children and RotS by Rydia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I must admit my fiance and I got a little teary-eyed during the Jedi pogrom. It was very sad and very well-done, from both thematic and cinematic views.

      Cody and Obi-Wan was a good example of that (though moreso if you've seen Clone Wars). Here you have a Jedi, their leader, the person upon whose skill their success lied directly, getting shot down by someone who we are to assume he had become friends with. Just like that. And then they cut to big-forehead-guy (whatever his name is), who was actually LEADING A CHARGE into a droid unit, waving wildly to egg them on, except WE know that he's trapped.

      So, these people are out fighting a war they don't want to fight, performing superbly, and then out of the blue, get shot in the back by their allies. I can't think of a more sad betrayal than that.

    26. Re:Children and RotS by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      four's probably a little too young, but if they've seen all the others, just cover their eyes at the 2-3 bad parts... There's definately something to discuss. I find the slaying of the jedi kids usually stirs more questions than Anakin being burned. it's more real to them.

      The first time I saw it I was a bit shocked too! But that IS the point of film... graphically it wasn't over the top, but graphic enough to stir some emotion and make you remember it.

    27. Re:Children and RotS by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      I wanted that POV shot to last about 2 seconds longer.. the whole problem with the editing was it just moved along too fast. I'd sit thru an extra 15 minutes to get it just right.

    28. Re:Children and RotS by originalrog · · Score: 1

      As long as it's not happening TO the kid and is accompanied by explanation and discussion (read: good parenting), then I don't see why either violence or grotesqueness is a problem.

      If a child hasn't begun developing a sensitivity and aversion to such things by age seven then he's too old. Too old to begin the training.

    29. Re:Children and RotS by Saeger · · Score: 1
      I'm 31, and I almost covered MY eyes during that scene.

      You can't be serious... oh, you said were. Then are you a metrosexual bychance?

      there WERE children in the theater laughing at that scene

      Oh my. Then that must mean their 'souls' have gone to the darkside, right? They're callous little heathens who didn't pay due respect to the seriousness of the scene? It's a MOVIE! Most kids are smart enough to grok that. Seeing the same shit in real life is the true empathy filter.

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    30. Re:Children and RotS by XO · · Score: 1

      dude, i saw the melting face scene in IJ when I was... 4.. I think... it scared the piss out of me. Almost as much as watching Alien (the first one) not too long after that one. (I was told not to watch it, but I sat about 40 feet behind my brother anyway and did, unbeknownst to him.. at least unbeknownst to him until I was so scared i did wet myself)

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    31. Re:Children and RotS by XO · · Score: 1

      you watched all of the nightmare on elm street movies when you were 4?

      so.. excluding Freddy vs. Jason, that means you are now... 14? 15 at best? Hmm.

      You got a few more years to go. ;-)

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    32. Re:Children and RotS by XO · · Score: 1

      Hell, I'm almost 30, and I still have nightmares. Most of them, unfortunatly, are about either work, or ex's, or weird things going on back where I used to live.

      Last night, involved all of the above! yay!

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    33. Re:Children and RotS by julesh · · Score: 1

      Also, I'd rather he have a chance to appreciate the series in order... I don't know if that means 4-5-6-1-2-3 or 1-2-3-4-5-6... haven't decided.

      There's another post on this page that makes a good case for 4-1-2-5-3-6; I myself think 4-5-1-2-3-6 is possibly the best. You might want to consider these two options.

    34. Re:Children and RotS by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      but is ANY child of that age ready for something like that? - depends how they got to that 7 years barrier. In the former USSR 1.7 million kids are homeless today, that includes kids as young as 1-2 year olds. Surely by the 'tender' age of 7 many of them have seen things that are way more disturbing than a fictional character in a movie getting his extremeties cut off.

    35. Re:Children and RotS by tooth · · Score: 1
      I'm just disappointed that obi-wan walked away and left him (Anakin) to suffer and die slowly and painfully like that (I had my leg burned badly when I was 14 and it was one of the most physically painful things that ever happen to me). Obi-wan should have sensed that pain using the force.

      I know that anakin had to live to be in ANH, but that was pretty damn cold to stand there and watch him burn. It would have been better to finish him off and end his pain.

      I thought at the time that Lucas should not have put obi-wan in that position (having to walk away while anakin suffered) ... maybe he should have had a flash vision of padme dying and he raced off to save her or get her to medical assistance.

    36. Re:Children and RotS by Keebler71 · · Score: 1

      My two and half year old is similarly obsessed yet he hasn't seen any yet.. just the marketing (particularly the posters of Chewbacca at Burger King). I was thinking about ripping Ep 4 and editing out the few "Scary" scenes so he can watch it... how'd your 4 year old react?

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    37. Re:Children and RotS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then are you a metrosexual bychance?

      Dude, why don't you just say "You fucking faggot!!!" and be done with it. Geez, fuckin' gayhater.

    38. Re:Children and RotS by kamileon · · Score: 1

      A bit tangential, but it's worth pointing out that the US is one of the few places in the world where parents even consider asking that question. A lot of children in the world are exposed to violence (real violence, not even screen violence) at a very young age. Even in the US, there are plenty of kids learning to skin deer at age 7, which is a whole lot nastier than Anakin's disfiguration.

      I think this sort of thing is a good opportunity for parents to talk with their kids about violence and empathy... Rather than desensitizing your kid, by just putting it in front of them, make it a a chance to talk with your kid about it.

      The way my parents went about it was to warn me when a particularly nasty scene was coming up on the movie, and give me a chance to opt out. if I didn't, they'd talk with me about the scene after the movie was over, how it made me feel, what sort of empathy I had for the character, maybe remind me that even bad guys only deserved to suffer so much if I was cheering on the good guy.

      YMMV, but I think I got a really strong moral grounding from it, rather than just dancing around the subject like a lot of parents do, and letting their kids be exposed to it via slumber parties at more liberal parents households.

      --
      To truly understand recursion, you must first truly understand recursion.
    39. Re:Children and RotS by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      I laughed too. Sorry but the acting was horrible and scene was very silly.

  21. I call shenanigans by AnswerGil · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This sound like awfully sophisticated thoughts for a 7 year old. Maybe kids have gotten better at understanding these things, or maybe it's a particularly intelligent 7 year old, but I'm doubting this is for real.

    1. Re:I call shenanigans by 0racle · · Score: 1

      Real Words of a 7 year old regarding the original Star Wars: "This is stupid, I'm bored." You can't really make an article out of that so the writer tried to write something to convey the sense of stupidity and boredom that was expressed.

      I agree, this isn't real in the sense that it isn't the thoughts of a 7 year old.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    2. Re:I call shenanigans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the exact same thing while reading it. This 7 year old is more observant then most adults. Either he's a genius or the guy's pulling a fast one on us.

    3. Re:I call shenanigans by cranos · · Score: 1

      Umm, it could quite possibly be the words of my seven year old son. I am constantly being surprised by what he comes out with.

    4. Re:I call shenanigans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember surprising my parents when I was really young and wanted to be a pilot. We visited a great aunt that I don't remember ver meeting before, and she said, as old relatives say, "So you want to be a pilot when you grow up? Will you take me on a trip when you are?"

      And without missing a beat I just answered, "If you live long enough." Totally deadpan and serious. That's the kind of things kids can say.

      And yes, I feel bad about it now.

    5. Re:I call shenanigans by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 1

      I was watching the evening news when I was 7. The world around me was fascinating and I wanted to learn all I could. My mother worked at Storage Tek back in the 70's and they let her bring home defective items, they spurred my imagination looking at them... makes we wonder where I lost my sense of adventure.

    6. Re:I call shenanigans by softends · · Score: 1

      How many seven year olds begin sentences with "It's a pity..."? And I doubt this kid is particularly gifted, seeing as his father submitted a /. story starting with passive voice.

    7. Re:I call shenanigans by kfg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This sound like awfully sophisticated thoughts for a 7 year old.

      If you had expressed this about me when I was 7 I would have requested that you desist from patronizing me.

      Just because most kids are not particularly intelligent does not mean there are not particularly intelligent kids.

      Or perhaps this one has simply not been force fed "age appropriate" fare all his life. That sort of thing can fuck up many a young mind.

      In any case my experience as an adult is that most kids can act and speak with a good deal more intelligence to people who treat them as peers instead of kids then is commonly held. They are quite capable social chameleons.

      KFG

    8. Re:I call shenanigans by stienman · · Score: 1

      Nah, it's sheer volume.

      The rate at which a kid aged 5 to 9 can spit out questions would amaze you. It's likely that the author had to deal with hundreds of questions, and we get the top 5%.

      -Adam

    9. Re:I call shenanigans by HishamMuhammad · · Score: 1

      The "It's a pity" sentence in the post was not a quote from the 7-year-old. Look again, it's not quoted. It's just the submitter's commentary.

    10. Re:I call shenanigans by HishamMuhammad · · Score: 1

      Come on. When I was 7 years old, I could program in Applesoft BASIC on the Apple II (and not only "Hello World", funky stuff in HGR2 :) ).

      These quotes are perfectly reasonable for a 7 year old, especially if his father is a major SW fan (which he surely is, having a blog in starwars.com), who probably discusses it with him, answers his questions, etc.

      Children have an amazing intellectual potential, as long as they are properly encouraged.

    11. Re:I call shenanigans by julesh · · Score: 1

      I doubt this kid is particularly gifted, seeing as his father submitted a /. story starting with passive voice.

      Passive voice is sometimes the most appropriate way of phrasing a sentence. That one, admittedly, could have been reworked into active fairly easily, but it works as passive and I'd say let it stand.

    12. Re:I call shenanigans by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Haven't you read the Ender's Game series? :)

      On a more personal note, my GF's parents have interesting things to say about this. She was somehow accelerated, was born and able to hold her head, speaking with people by the age of 9 months (first words: -I am thirsty (in Russian).) Started reading by 2. And at 6 years of age in her first grade made the teachers cry by seeing/expressing too much truth about their abilities.

      (and oh boy, oh boy, am I screwed!)

    13. Re:I call shenanigans by TrappedByMyself · · Score: 1

      This sound like awfully sophisticated thoughts for a 7 year old

      oh, you mean like "How can the Emperor dissolve the Senate? Didn't he destroy it trying to kill Yoda?"
      No chance. This is just some dude hyping his kid.
      I had a coworker that would do this. Kid is genius, did this, did that. When I met the kid, he was drooling on himself and walking into walls.

      --

      Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
    14. Re:I call shenanigans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had expressed this about me when I was 7 I would have requested that you desist from patronizing me.

      And now you spend your days posting to Slashdot. What happened poor soul?

    15. Re:I call shenanigans by kfg · · Score: 1

      Obviously I didn't get my minimum requirement for being patronized by my inferiors when I was young.

      KFG

    16. Re:I call shenanigans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So wait, are you saying that it's really intelligent, and beyond the capabilities of a child, to think that the emperor "destroyed" the entire Senate by throwing a couple of the chairs at Yoda?

      Perhaps we should be questioning the intelligence of someone other than the child, here.

      And, by the way, I read the Hobbit and started the Fellowship of the Ring when I was in third grade. Took me until eighth to finish the entire series, but I understood it pretty well. I think a seven-year-old could ask these sorts of questions pretty well, especially if you factor in the idea that the father most likely wasn't sitting right next to the kid with a notebook and pencil waiting to copy down exact quotes.

    17. Re:I call shenanigans by TrappedByMyself · · Score: 1

      Dude, you're caught up in the idea of the magical nerd. A concept where nerd children are smarter than normal people, and grown up nerds are far superior, but too humble to fully exploit their abilities. It's a feel-good way of coping with reality.

      Not saying that kids can't be smart. Just saying that stories about smart kids get a little juicy at times.

      I would bet money that
      1) The kid was coached
      2) The quotes were tweaked

      --

      Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
  22. Bad Acting by ndansmith · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I have noticed that it is en vogue to bash the acting of Star Wars episodes I-III. However, after watching III, I watched IV-VI, and discovered that bad acting is something which plagues the entire series.

    Also of note is how much Lucas' writing and directing style have changed. Episode IV is very slow paced compared to III. There is only one light-sabre battle, and it consists of Obi-Wan and Darth walking around calmly while being careful not to break a sweat. Contrast that to III, which has tons of sabre (and other) battles, and it quite fast paced.

    1. Re:Bad Acting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I think arthritis set in for Obi-Wan and Darth Vader. Remember they're much older now. Too bad their light saber didn't double as a walking stick.

    2. Re:Bad Acting by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

      I have noticed that it is en vogue to bash the acting of Star Wars episodes I-III. However, after watching III, I watched IV-VI, and discovered that bad acting is something which plagues the entire series.

      To varying degrees. Personally, nothing I saw in IV-VI causes quite the pain that the wooden delivery in I-III does.

    3. Re:Bad Acting by MuckSavage · · Score: 1

      Probably because he had a budget of about 10,000 times more than when he made the first movie. And not to mention the whole technology difference 28 years of movie making has seen since then.

    4. Re:Bad Acting by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen ep 3 yet but you have to take things into account here.

      100s of Jedi VS 2 Jedi and 2 Dark Jedi/Sith.

      Han was trying to keep his ass out of the firing line the whole original trilogy, it's not untill the final one when he stops looking after himself above all others. So they didn't have many full scale wars, because Han avoided them like the plague and hence kept Luke away from them and most the cast who followed either character.

      and Lastly, the Jedi are all old and out of training in the trilogy. Yoda can hardly walk, Obi Wan is just an old hermit with a light saber, Luke is a rookie with no real skill (his force powers are the only reason he's a jedi and remember Anakin was OLD for a padawan, so WTF was Luke?). And Vader could hardly breathe let alone fight (watch how he swings wildly all the time, he's got no skills left).

      Plus back in that era effects like light sabers were expensive and the less they used them the better.

      --
      I like muppets.
    5. Re:Bad Acting by jkabbe · · Score: 1

      Oh come on....

      "I thought I recognized your *foul* stench when I was brought on board."

      We'd be hammering lines like that if they had appeared in Ep I-III and the delivery wasn't any better either.

    6. Re:Bad Acting by cranos · · Score: 1

      Oh please, Carrie Fisher had more presence and believability than Portman any day. Sure Hamil wasn't exactly mister Oscar material but even he was better than the guy they go to play Anakin.

    7. Re:Bad Acting by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      "...he had a budget of about 10,000 times more than when he made the first movie..."

      Man, I wish he'd put it to better use, too.

      My hope was that he'd use his piles of cash to make a truly groundbreaking set of movies, with special effects that put everything else to shame. In my mind, this would have involved get his old crew back together and making some really top-notch old-school special effects, then heavily augmenting those with CG where necessary. I mean, he can *afford* to do something like that. He could spend damn near any amount of money he felt like on the new trilogy, and been sure to still make a handsome profil.

      Instead, he did everything CG. *Not Groundbreaking*. Hell, not even good. I think the ships in, say, Empire look more believable than anything in the I-III. I'll grant that the effects weren't perfect in the original trilogy, but most of the space-based stuff (and much of Bespin/Cloud City, for that matter) that took place in V and VI were better than Lucas's new crap.

      Sad. What a missed opportunity.

      Also, what's up with the new 'sabers? Take a look at one when it's not moving... see that? Yeah, it looks flat. Not quite as bad as the ones in ANH, but not as good as the ones in Empire/Jedi. What happened there?

    8. Re:Bad Acting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, after watching III, I watched IV-VI, and discovered that bad acting is something which plagues the entire series.

      Yeah, it's kind of like playing Bubble Bobble after 10 years. You realize how dumb the game really was.

    9. Re:Bad Acting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would rather kiss a Wookie!
      You scruffy-haired nerf-herder!

      No, her lines and delivery sucked just as badly.

    10. Re:Bad Acting by horza · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also of note is how much Lucas' writing and directing style have changed. Episode IV is very slow paced compared to III. There is only one light-sabre battle, and it consists of Obi-Wan and Darth walking around calmly while being careful not to break a sweat. Contrast that to III, which has tons of sabre (and other) battles, and it quite fast paced.

      I know, with all the spewing lava backgrounds etc. I felt it was just missing a few car chases, with a few rolling and exploding, to complete the effect.

      I and II were awful, but III was nowhere near the original trilogy. The acting was wooden, the blurred light-sabre action more like an MTV video than a life or death fight. No tension. No comparison.

      Phillip.

    11. Re:Bad Acting by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      But they're fun! Doesn't that count for something? For God's sake, Star Wars is intended to be fun. It's not intended to be serious cinema.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    12. Re:Bad Acting by skyman8081 · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you get get your delusions from, laser-brain!

      --
      Two Roommates and a Boyfriend, updates Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
    13. Re:Bad Acting by Danse · · Score: 1

      We'd be hammering lines like that if they had appeared in Ep I-III and the delivery wasn't any better either.

      You try delivering crap lines like that and see how well you do. I thought Carrie Fisher did pretty well, considering how horrible the writing was.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    14. Re:Bad Acting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Episode IV is very slow paced compared to III. There is only one light-sabre battle, and it consists of Obi-Wan and Darth walking around calmly while being careful not to break a sweat.

      Well, perhaps if you knew a little about fencing... allow me to explain.

      I am a fencer of.. yay.. two years. What I notice about Vader vs Obi-Wan is that it's actually quite frantic. Obi-Wan is an old man, with slow reflexes and low energy levels. He can't afford to twirl and swing wide - when fighting with a very centered style like that, he could effectively hold Vader off all day without tiring. Vader, of course, would get quite frustrated and then be prone to making silly mistakes. That's Obi-Wan's best hope for winning.

      Of course, Vader isn't exactly normal - he's getting on, too. He must be about 40 by that point, so his reflexes are long gone, not to the point of Obi-Wan's, but still he's not a young man. He does have strength and stamina that Kenobi doesn't have and so will use them to his advantage. Naturall, Obi-Wan won't run around in circles because he's just not capable of it any more.

      I remember reading a study where a 30 year old male has lost around 15% of his reflexes, on average, over an 18 year old. I did a few tests in class 4 years backs. I was 26, and the kids I was testing against were all 18. My reflexes were noticably slower than theirs.

      Don't make the mistake of seeing an old man using a technique with small movements as "useless"... something you learn pretty damned quick in fencing is that when you make a big movement, even if your opponent is a 70-year-old, a skilled opponent will make an attack around your movement and nail you. Fencing is very, very fast and precise.

      I've fenced a 78 year old who just had a knee replacement. He wouldn't be capable of doing the big wide swings that we see in the prequels, but by god, try one of those against him and you're screwed.

      So now you know. If you're curious as to what I'm talking about, get in touch with the local Salle or fencing club, and go along for a look. You'll discover that fencing isn't much fun to watch unless you know what you're looking at, and while it has a reputation as a "gentleman's sport" it's certainly a lot of hard work, too.

    15. Re:Bad Acting by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      I always liked that line. And the delivery.

      Maybe I saw them when I was too young and impressionable. (note parallel thread)

      O_O

    16. Re:Bad Acting by enosys · · Score: 1

      I've read that in Episode IV the light sabers were spinning mirrored rods. They couldn't touch because they'd stop spinning or break. It seems Wikipedia has some info. Go to the "Lightsaber effects in the movies" section of the Light_saber page.

    17. Re:Bad Acting by Jeff85 · · Score: 1

      Hey, hey now. "Scruffy-looking nerf herder" is still my favorite line.

      --
      Fetch Text URL - Firefox Extension
    18. Re:Bad Acting by Whoozit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Episode IV slower than III? Did you see the same movies I did?

      I admit the 'action' scenes in IV didn't have quite the 'wow' factor with people jumping around and stuff blowing up, but it had something much more important -- characters and a plot you actually CARED about.

      Whether it was more charisma from the acting or better direction, IV's plotline went from scene to scene revealing a bit of the story each time without any filler. Characters were developed. We learned of the dangers of the galaxy and depravations of an empire along with Luke.

      In III, there were far too many effects without enough substance to make the audience care.

      Take the opening scene of III -- a technically impressive space battle, but one that is totally uninspiring. It is introduced with some text, but what ships are whose? Why the hell is there a batttle being fought? Whose ships are whose? It's so chaotic it's hard to relate to.

      Contrast that with ANH's opening scene -- instantly you know the score. Big bad empire chasing little ship. Youre in suspense. You are sucked in...

      The whole movie's like that. III spends way too much time dicking around with unimportant plot points, trying (but failing) to paint a convincing picture of Anakin's slow descent to the dark side...

    19. Re:Bad Acting by Kuros_overkill · · Score: 1

      It is introduced with some text, but what ships are whose? Why the hell is there a batttle being fought? Whose ships are whose? It's so chaotic it's hard to relate to.

      This is how real battles tend to be like. Massive Confution, Moving to fast to take it all in. We know that the two ships we are following are important, because we are following them. Everything else is there to create the chaotic mess that all other large scale battles tend to become.

    20. Re:Bad Acting by buravirgil · · Score: 1

      There's an apocryphal story about Harrison Ford yelling at Lucas on the set, "You can write this stuff, but you can't SAY it!"

      Lucas' direction of actors in a movie such as American Graffitti, clearly demonstrates his understanding of letting actors find their character and improvise. He refers to a SanFran style of direction that he was happy to say he showed Spielberg, a child of los angeles production

      but Lucas would abandon dramatic and emotive subjects his beloved matinee serials; for the morality of sci fi themed by Campbellian comparative religion

      it's not that Lucas' films are examples of bad acting, but the deliberate choice of a director to abandon the naturalistic progression of modern cinema to tell a FAIRY TALE

      the characters are stoic, broad and representative-- he gives them one note a scene. largely, Lucas' characters have no agendas, their motivations are clear and on the surface

      an exception would be Yoda...Lucas derisively referred to Frank Oz craft as a "rubber puppet" and that he looked forward to the day of a fully rendered CG Yoda

      and he got it...and Yoda is about the only character that holds the camera's frame to show complex facial expression

      i imagine Lucas was enraptured watching Smegel

      --
      Would were! Should is! Could be! And live a hundred times three.
    21. Re:Bad Acting by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 1
      Take the opening scene of III -- a technically impressive space battle, but one that is totally uninspiring. It is introduced with some text, but what ships are whose? Why the hell is there a batttle being fought? Whose ships are whose? It's so chaotic it's hard to relate to.

      I think the major problem there is that the Clone Wars cartoons set that all up, and Lucas thought he didn't need to really explain it in the movie.

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
  23. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  24. While we are on the subject. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really hate to say this but I don't buy the idea of Anakin Skywalker being redeemed. If you think about everything he was done; killing of Jedi, a room full of 9 year olds, waging war for 20 years, blowing up a planet, etc... Just because the chucked a an old man overboard it doesn't make everything he did alright. Luke should have played Tic-Tac-Toe on his chest with his lightsaber before killing him in the most painful way imaginable.

    1. Re:While we are on the subject. by biffnix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, that's sort of the definition of redemption. If you're talking standard Christian doctrine, then redemption is available to ALL sinners, regardless of the depths of their apostasy. If you're a Christian, then your sin is forgiven by God, through his Son. All you have to do is accept redemption sincerely, and it is given to you.

      Now, in Star Wars, I guess we can imagine that Luke is willing to sacrifice his life for his dad's. By accepting that act of gracious sacrifice, Darth was redeemed. Not quite a perfect fit with standard Christian stories, but the metaphor remains intact. Someone who is faithful (Luke has faith in his father's goodness despite much evidence to the contrary) reaches out to someone who doesn't deserve it, and offers redemption. It is accepted, and the person is redeemed!

      If King David can be redeemed through faith, then so can Darth Vader...

      Maybe we're just a bit too jaded with a vengeful mentality these days to accept the idea that even the worst human is worthy of redemption.

      Joe G.
      Bishop, CA

      --
      Don't Die Wondering
    2. Re:While we are on the subject. by starX · · Score: 1

      I think, this time last month, before I had seen him kill a room full of children (or at least had that act so wonderfully left absent, leaving you to imagine you saw it), I would have agreed. That does more to describe Darth Vader's evil than him blowing up a planet of nameless, faceless people. Still, God's Law (v. 2.0) is able to forgive what the law of Men would never tolerate, and in the New Testament reconning, recognizing the act as evil and abhoring it is all that really matters.

      Should human society necessarily have that much grace? Luke can manage to forgive his father, but I am curious to know if Leia would be able to. What about Han? For that matter, what about Obi Wan, Yoda, or any of the other jedi whom Darth Vader betrayed?

      Sort of inspires me to parody The Trial of Luculus.

    3. Re:While we are on the subject. by greg1104 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The endings of both tESB and RotJ had a new spin for me after watching Sith recently. By the end of Empire, Vader has figured out that the Emperor lied to him and his son was alive all along. What does he do? Try to get Luke's help to muscle the old man out and run things himself. Now it comes off not just as greed for more power, but as hoping for revenge for being lied to and otherwise manipulated.

      Similary, the end of Jedi seems totally different to me now. Vader realizes his hopes of taking over as the new Emperor aren't going to happen because Luke just isn't good enough to pull it off, and he cracks. He gets pissed off and the old reflexes to kill the person responsible kick in, so he offs Palpatine in a rage the same way he routinely used to kill people in his younger days. It's not to atone for his sins or even to save his son. He's been getting pushed around by this guy for twenty years, looking for a weak moment to off him, and finally he gives up hope on a better ending and just finishes him off while there's a good window to do it.

    4. Re:While we are on the subject. by ApharmdB · · Score: 1

      Luke could forgive his father for what? What evil of DV's did Luke ever experience? Sure, Owen & Beru died, but not by DV's hand. All the other people were just statistics to Luke and he never found out that DV killed his mom. Luke grew up without parents and simply wanted a dad.

    5. Re:While we are on the subject. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Maybe we're just a bit too jaded with a vengeful mentality these days to accept the idea that even the worst human is worthy of redemption.

      But the problem is that sometimes "the worst human" is using something technologically hefty enough (like, say, a multi-ton airplane full of people and fuel) to do something rather drastic, and irreversibly final. Platitudes about being jaded, and not giving that one-way pilot a chance to redeem himself, do not stop him from killing himself and you at the same time. Especially when he really means it.

      The same thing applies to gleefully brutal people like rapists and other types that do dreadful things. You can't sit down and have a nice redemptive chat with people like that as they are about to ruin or take someone's life. Tales of redemption generally don't involve the sorts of events that real-life Darth Vaders instigate (like gassing thousands of villagers who don't share your tribal/sect aspirations or want to put up with tyranny). The closest thing to redemption, in stories like that, is physically stopping the acts from occurring. And while it may take a certain amount of "faith" in one's objective to stick to it in the face of shrill or violent opposition, it's action or the credible threat of it, not lyrical references to poetic justice and redemption in traditional mythology that will and always has reigned in the real Vaders.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:While we are on the subject. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      That does more to describe Darth Vader's evil than him blowing up a planet of nameless, faceless people.

      That was Tarkin, not Vader.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    7. Re:While we are on the subject. by tunesmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Emporer didn't know that Vader had children - he thought Vader killed him. I think he was being honest there. The identity of the children were hidden, and Padme's funeral showed her still pregnant.

      --
      skkkoooonnnggggkkk ptui
    8. Re:While we are on the subject. by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      Quite true that the Emperor may have been telling what he thought to be the truth. But: how would Vader know that? Confronted with the fact that the child he was told died is alive, which would you expect him to conclude: that the master of Sith made an honest mistake, or that he lied to Vader to set him off and make him a better tool?
      It's not like he's going to visit his evil master and ask, "hey, dude, when you told me my wife died before our kids were born, were you sure about that? Cause I think you made a mistake."

    9. Re:While we are on the subject. by DrWho520 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Vader realizes his hopes of taking over as the new Emperor aren't going to happen because Luke just isn't good enough to pull it off, and he cracks.

      When did he realize this, before or after Luke removed his hand and placed him in the same prone position as Anakin placed Dooku? Sure, the Emperor took him down fairly quickly, but that was after Luke threw his Lightsaber away and presented himself defenseless to the Emperor. Well, not defenseless. He had the most powerful weapon in the universe not a yard away from him in the form of his father.

      I came away with this. Anakin never had control of his life and never had personal responsibility. He went from a slave on Tatooine to Obi-Wan's padawan. He was always able to use his talent to get him out of the tough spots, but he never learned that his raw talent needed to be tempered by skill and focus. He lost to Dooku in their first battle because he leaned on talent and power. In their second battle, he tells Dooku he has grown powerful not how he has grown more skillfull.

      Once he turns to the dark side, he returns to being a slave and he still relys on his power as a crutch. He is Cerebus on a giant chain guarding the doors to the Empire. Anakin fights Obi-wan the same way he fought Dooku. Unless you believe in luck, a clearly less powerful but more skilled warrior won that battle. Anakin is like any young adult. He does not think, he believe's himself to be invincible and he suffers from a monumental case of hubris.

      Finally, in that throne room aboard the Deathstar, he makes his first conscious, responsible decision. He looks back on his life and realizes where he went wrong. He remembers the goading by Palaptine that drove him to destroy Dooku. He sees his son at much the same age, who grew up much the same way and had much less training than himself face the same situation and make the same choice. He finally realizes true strength, because his son shows it to him. Why does he return from the dark side of the force? Because he makes the right decision and makes the ultimate sacrifice for that decision. In his final moments, he does save Padme in the form of their son.

      Maybe my rose colored glasses need adjusting, but I think that is closer to what the Lucas was thinking. Just my two cents, take it or flush it.

      --
      The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
    10. Re:While we are on the subject. by biffnix · · Score: 1

      But the problem is that sometimes "the worst human" is using something technologically hefty enough (like, say, a multi-ton airplane full of people and fuel) to do something rather drastic, and irreversibly final.

      Your quote gets right to the crux of the matter. Both in the Star Wars movies, and standard Christian philosophy, there is no "irreversibly final" act. Yoda admonishes Anakin to let go of his obsession with the things of this world, which even includes his attachment to Padme. He tells Anakin to rejoice, rather than mourn, death. This flies in the face of most self-centered philosophies, which are ultimately doomed to fail, due to mankind's mortality. If the meaning of one's life is dependent on things that end with one's own life ("Be nice to other people, do good works, fulfill one's own potential, etc.), then that philosophy fails when one's life ends, as they all will. Hence, the Star Wars philosophy extends beyond mortal life, but anyone who doesn't have faith in "the force," and therefore refuses to accept that death is not the end, but rather a beginning, never gains the greatest power (eternal life, peace, happiness, wisdom, as evidenced by the return of Yoda and Obi Wan in ghost form), and spends their existence in futile search for transcendence which never comes. It is through the act of faith that they become "true" Jedi. Without faith, characters are left with nothing greater to live for than power, money, control, etc. And that way lies the Dark Side... ;-)

      Yoda's advice resonates with Christian philosophy in the same way. Redemption for even the worst of humans is possible because God's power extends beyond this world. So when one has faith, their actions will reflect that faith, and redemption is at hand. Yes, even for murderers, rapists, child-killers, child molesters, or any other horrible human-based atrocity. Theologically speaking, Lucas' "force" has this in common with other religious philosophies which advocate faith as their catalyst, and extends beyond mortal life.

      Joe G.
      Bishop, CA

      --
      Don't Die Wondering
  25. 4-5-6-1-2-3-4-5-6 by genrader · · Score: 2, Informative

    Next time I have the pleasure of showing these to someone for the first time, I am definitely showing them 4-6, then 1-3, then 4-6 again. Spoiling some of the major emotional moments of 4-6 by seeing 1-3 first, ugh.

    1. Re:4-5-6-1-2-3-4-5-6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone I saw suggested - correctly I think - watching them IV - V - I - II - III - VI.

      Think about it. Clearly right. You get the surprises in IV, V. Then you get the back story. Then you get the big conclusion.

    2. Re:4-5-6-1-2-3-4-5-6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then twice through 1-6 again, just for good measure.

    3. Re:4-5-6-1-2-3-4-5-6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Followed by the entire Lord of the Rings extended edition series, then in reverse order.

  26. Zonk and blogging stories by The+Hobo · · Score: 1

    Yet again, two on the front page, soon will be compiling links to all his blog-related stories, stay tuned....

    --
    There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
  27. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  28. That's what I was saying. by SeaFox · · Score: 2, Interesting

    'Look... Obi-Wan is pretending he doesn't know R2-D2,'

    I recenetly rewatched Episode 4 and was struck with the same thought. I guessed that Obi Wan was just pretending he didn't know R2D2 since he's supposed to be keeping a low profile and Luke obviously knew nothing of Ben's role as a Jedi knight in the Clone Wars.

    R2D2 could have had his memory erased, could be reprogrammed as an Imperial spy, ect. So until he saw the message from Leia and knew it was not a trap of some sort, he had to maintain his cover.

    1. Re:That's what I was saying. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You do realized that he filmed Star Wars first, and then made the other movies?

      I find it odd how people try to resolve plot holes with fiction or twisted justification, as if this will somehow make order in the universe. the only people that may have to give this sort of matter any sort of concern is an official comic book writer or someone else publishing something under the Star Wars license. Allow me to explain the real reason: Obi Wan isn't real, and that scene was either somthing Lucas didn't think of or didn't care about.

      Oh, and this is nice:

      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 6 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

      Combined with that fucktarded script-test bullshit, slashdot has achieved a new level of shitiness. Course this will get my post modded down as flamebait or off-topic, but what else am I supposed to do while I sit here waiting for this magical counter to finish it's run? Cram my thumb up my ass?

      Let's try again ...

    2. Re:That's what I was saying. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obi-Won is also old and senile, and there are a hell of a lot of R2 units. It is surprising that he would n't recognize C3P0 though...

    3. Re:That's what I was saying. by dotslashdot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are lots of R2 units. Maybe he didn't remember this particular one.

    4. Re:That's what I was saying. by ChePibe · · Score: 1

      "R2D2 could have had his memory erased, could be reprogrammed as an Imperial spy, ect. So until he saw the message from Leia and knew it was not a trap of some sort, he had to maintain his cover."

      Or, perhaps, in some crazy attempt to make a profit, the people at droids are us made more than one of the same droid?

      Sorry, just watched Meet the Parents, which I suppose does bare some resemblence to Star Wars in a sick, strange way...

    5. Re:That's what I was saying. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recenetly rewatched Episode 4 and was struck with the same thought. I guessed that Obi Wan was just pretending he didn't know R2D2 since he's supposed to be keeping a low profile and Luke obviously knew nothing of Ben's role as a Jedi knight in the Clone Wars.

      You do realize that R2 units are a dime a dozen in the Star Wars galaxy, right? How the fuck is Obi supposed to know this is the same damn droid he hung out with several decades ago? It's not like R2-D2 had some kind of distinguishing case mod/tattoo that would uniquely identify him (although I think the jedi should have given him a bad-ass tattoo after he saved their midochlorian-enriched asses on several occasions).

    6. Re:That's what I was saying. by OmgTEHMATRICKS · · Score: 2, Funny

      "So until he saw the message from Leia and knew it was not a trap of some sort, he had to maintain his cover."

      Ackbar: It's a trap!
      Leia: No it's not.
      Ackbar: Oh.

    7. Re:That's what I was saying. by Hsien · · Score: 0

      R2D2 could have had his memory erased

      Towards the end of the movie, Bail Organa tells his a worker to wipe R2D2 and C-3P0's memory banks?

    8. Re:That's what I was saying. by Gleng · · Score: 5, Funny

      Exactly. I doubt I'd remember my family's washing machine from 20 years ago if I saw it again.

      --
      "Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
    9. Re:That's what I was saying. by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      But surely the washing machine does not have more personality than your little brother. Oh, and has the washing machine saved your life?

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    10. Re:That's what I was saying. by quantum+bit · · Score: 1

      Towards the end of the movie, Bail Organa tells his a worker to wipe R2D2 and C-3P0's memory banks?

      No, he just tells Captain Antilles to "wipe the protocol droid's mind". C-3P0 laments and R2 'laughs' at him. Which is kind of odd really, what logical reason is there to wipe one of them but not the other?

    11. Re:That's what I was saying. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It feels an awful lot like Slashdot is trying to kill off Anonymous Coward posts. And the more you post, the longer you have to wait for the next one. Sigh.

    12. Re:That's what I was saying. by AnswerGil · · Score: 1

      Because we can't understand a god-damned word R2D2 says. (here comes the troll) It's the same as the Adam and Eve story, if Eve had eaten from the tree of life, then everybody would know the whole thing is made up.

    13. Re:That's what I was saying. by Gleng · · Score: 1

      But how many beat-up, blue & white astromech droids would there be in the Star Wars universe? Maybe, with regular memory wipes, the AI of R2 units is quite simple and doesn't differ that greatly from droid to droid. After all, they don't even bother giving them voice capabilities. They're intended to fix ships and stay out of the way.

      Maybe Obi-Wan would remember after he learned R2's name, and saw the message it was carrying.

      (I've just had a sudden pang of nerd-angst. I'm sat here at 4am UK time on Saturday morning, discussing Star Wars on Slashdot :( )

      --
      "Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
    14. Re:That's what I was saying. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Threepio isn't trustworthy. (Look at ESB, he offers to surrender to the Imperials). Artoo is smarter, incomprehensible, and presumably more trustworthy. Besides, throughout the whole series, Artoo knows what's going on, but Threepio just cluelessly follows him around. "What mission? We'll have none of this Obi-Wan Kenobi gibberish!"

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    15. Re:That's what I was saying. by meesto · · Score: 1

      I'd recognise that bastard of a washing machine if I were to meet it in a dark alley these days. It nearly tore my arm off!

    16. Re:That's what I was saying. by joneser005 · · Score: 1

      Except that eps 1-3 are more akin to revisionist history - I seriously doubt Lucas's intent back in the 70's was for Obi to fake not knowing R2. I think he added that in so he could stick them in all of the prequels. Kinda like Chewie being in there. Why for again?!

    17. Re:That's what I was saying. by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Did you REALLY believe Lucas when he told you he had six (or nine, he keeps changing his mind) episodes all plotted out before he ever started on the first movie? Here's a clue for you: he lied!

      The first time Star Wars was shown in a theater, it did NOT say it was episode IV. It did NOT say "A New Hope." It was just plain "Star Wars". But by the time of the second theater run, Lucas had already started revising the story. The Luke/Biggs conversation on Tatooine was gone, never more to be seen. Sigh.

      To be fair, it's certain that Lucas had some idea of the characters' backgrounds. Every writer does! He may even have sketched out a brief history. And he may have had some ideas for sequels if the first movie proved popular.

      But to pretend that he had all six (nine) planned out in advance is absurd. Some of the earlier scripts are so different from what ended up in the first movie it's extremely probable he just pulled stuff out of his ass as he went along. When a little kid says "Look... Obi-Wan is pretending he doesn't know R2-D2", then we know the truth that the emperor has no clothes.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    18. Re:That's what I was saying. by pavon · · Score: 1

      But I'd never forget my toaster.

    19. Re:That's what I was saying. by Hsien · · Score: 0

      I stand corrected.
      Perhaps Obi-wan was haboring ill feelings towards R2D2 for the whole elevator insodent, and suspects it was appart of R2's greater intergelatix plan and that R2D2 is infeact the REAL Sith lord?

    20. Re:That's what I was saying. by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 1

      Did you REALLY believe Lucas when he told you he had six (or nine, he keeps changing his mind) episodes all plotted out before he ever started on the first movie? Here's a clue for you: he lied!

      No, the entire plot is exactly like Lucas originally imagined it, where the emporer is a dark and shadowy figure unseen until the 9th movie.

    21. Re:That's what I was saying. by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      ...unseen until the 9th movie.

      Hah! :-)

      Btw, I just realized another gaping inconsistancy in Lucas' meticulously crafted plot line. In TPM Yoda says that six year old Anakin is too old to start Jedi training. Yet a couple of decades later Yoda trains a twenty year old Lucas^H^He. What's the deal?

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    22. Re:That's what I was saying. by Nivoset · · Score: 1

      or r2 escapes being wiped at first because suddenly the world is in a war and reprogrammign a droid that doesn't seem to have any personallity issues yet drops in problems, they wipe c3p0 because anakin made him.

      i am a huge r2d2 fan though, i think he is a kick ass robot. and i dont think he has been wiped since the start of the first movie (he does the same thing to padme's ship as he did to the falcon) i think he just by the end if a bit messed up from not being erased.

      i also remember someone talking about how he found out and backed himself up into the xwing or cloud city, or the falcon's r2 units so if he did get wiped, he would just come back when he connected to one of them

      --
      Movies made by a crazy person

      http://www.youtube.com/marginalpro
    23. Re:That's what I was saying. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You desperately need an imagination. If you can't figure out why Yoda is prepared to train Luke, then you need to WTFM.

      I don't for a minute believe Lucas plotted the movies either but what you point out is in no way an inconsistancy.

    24. Re:That's what I was saying. by DigitalCrackPipe · · Score: 1

      You might remember your washing machine if it had a sassy attitude like R2.

  29. now that he's seen all by harlemjoe · · Score: 1

    now that this kid has seen all from a fresh perspective, which side is he on?

    is he childishly rooting for Luke and co, or has he instinctively come to appreciate the case for the empire?

    --
    shooting is not too good for my enemies
  30. Spoilers!!! by sdo1 · · Score: 1
    It's a pity the end of Empire has been spoiled

    Ah, man! Thanks jerks. You'd think I could get on here without major spoilers. That's almost as bad as the Ken Jennings thing.

    Sheesh.

    -S

    --
    --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
  31. Heinous crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You will never have the opportunity to relive the moment of truth at the end of Empire, or learn about the twins in Return of the Jedi. It will all be a foregone conclusion. Robbing a child of this opportunity is a heinous crime...

    Your threshold of what constitutes a 'heinous crime' is a bit low. I would reserve that phrase for something like forcing a child into slavery (sexual or otherwise), not eating for three days, or having access to any type of medical care whatsoever.

    Guys, get a grip. Yeah, the prequels suck, but let's put things in perspective. This is why the rest of the world hates us. A 'heinous crime' for an American child is watching a movie they already know the ending of. A 'heinous crime' for a child in a third world country is a different thing entirely.

    1. Re:Heinous crime? by SlightOverdose · · Score: 1

      Yes, I agree. having access to any type of medical care whatsoever is a heinous crime!

  32. Where is Qui-Gon? by mre5565 · · Score: 4, Funny
    Answer: George didn't think of till it till after the latest re-release of a A New Hope. Don't worry, George will digitally add Qui-Gon and dialog with Obi_wan when the 3D version comes out.

    It's all about more money for George.

    1. Re:Where is Qui-Gon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wow, that's really funny... if it hadn't been said about half-a-million times before by others the same calibre of wit.

      yawn...

      You know, there's a new boobies link on Fark. Seems you might fit in better there.

    2. Re:Where is Qui-Gon? by mre5565 · · Score: 1
      Wow, that's really funny... if it hadn't been said about half-a-million times before by others the same calibre of wit.

      yawn...

      You know, there's a new boobies link on Fark. Seems you might fit in better there.

      Oh look, George Lucas is posting to /.
    3. Re:Where is Qui-Gon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite-Gone...

    4. Re:Where is Qui-Gon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get this question at all. Didn't Qui-Gon die in the Phantom Menace? What has Lucas dreamt up exactly?

    5. Re:Where is Qui-Gon? by Nikse.dk · · Score: 1

      Qui-Gon did die in PM - but in ROTS (at the end) Yoda tells Obi Wan that he has been contacted by Qui-Gon, who found a way to communicate after death.

  33. Just right wing Christians? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You need to get to out more. You'll find that attitude taken by many Muslim, Jewish, left wing christian nutjobs, and new age liberal, and athiest parents. Probably other groups I haven't had direct experience with as well.

    Why am I saying anything? I was raised by left wing christian nutjobs and had friends whose parents filled one of the above categories. Being an over protective parent has little to do with being a right wing christian, and more to do with being a fscking control freak. And control freaks are found in every religious and non-religious group.

  34. Vader means Father by polar_cap_miner · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The word vader would be pronounced "FAH-DHER" in most languages of a germanic lineage including Middle-English. FATHER is basically the result of a few hundred years of regional dialect changes. In Afrikaans, Darth Vader would have said "Ek is jou vader (I am your father)". So the big *surprise* in Empire is only to those who speak modern English

    1. Re:Vader means Father by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      that's just silly. they could have used the name "dark father" and it might still have come as a surprise that he was Luke's father. "father" could just be a title.

    2. Re:Vader means Father by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Does the title "Darth" translate to "Luke's" or something?

      Honestly, how many people would have made such a connection just because he had the name "father" in the title?

      I'd still be surprised if I found out that Father Christmas was my father, or Father Ted for that matter.

      In fact (2005 Lucas to the contrary) it's debatable whether 1977 Lucas intended for Vader to be Luke's father at all. Think of it more as "Father figure of the empire" or something. Maybe Lucas discovered this connection before ESB and decided to take advantage of it.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    3. Re:Vader means Father by polar_cap_miner · · Score: 1

      Star Wars is heavily reliant on mythological tradition and narrative style. The well known story of Oedipus - the guy who marries his mother and kills his father is the basis for some of what happens in Star Wars. Luke Skywalker starts out having a thing for Leia (his sister in this case) and seeks to destroy Darth Vader, his father. Darth Sidious would no doubt be derived from the word INSIDIOUS which means to work harmfully in a stealthy manner. There is a rich tradition of characters being named according to their plot significance in narrative history.

    4. Re:Vader means Father by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think he meant Vader to be Father as I think George was writing 4-6 as he was going along ... it wasn't all pre-planned from the beginning.

      Going along with your INSIDIOUS comment, make the same connection with Vader ... INVADER

    5. Re:Vader means Father by tepples · · Score: 1

      Going along with your INSIDIOUS comment, make the same connection with Vader ... INVADER

      Then what's "INMAUL"? In the mall? Does it hint at Lucas's "moychandising," as Yogurt from Spaceballs calls it?

    6. Re:Vader means Father by KH · · Score: 1

      I've had an honor of watching (parts) of Empire in this country, the Netherlands on TV. They don't dubb, so, it is subtitled. Things go something like "Vader, jij vermoord mijn vader." "Luke, ik ben jouw vader. "Vader, ben jij mijn vader?" (Sorry for bad Dutch.) It's pretty hilarious.

    7. Re:Vader means Father by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nonsense. It's just a coincidence. Lucas doesn't speak Afrikaans.

      Look at all the sith names. They're trival variations of something dark or sinister. Darth Maul (a heavy blunt weapon). Darth Sidius (insidious). Darth Tyranus (tryant).

      Darth Vader is a trivial variation on "Dark Invader".

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    8. Re:Vader means Father by xigxag · · Score: 1

      In that case, I'd argue that the surprise would have even more oomph to it in Middle English.

      We are accustomed to parsing it simply as:
      Darth: Luke, I am your father.

      but a ME speaker would get the added interpretation of:

      Darth: (Do you not yet realize why they call me Father???) Luke, I am YOUR father.

      The sense of inevitability of it all...it would be overwhelming. Couple that with the fact that "Luke" means "light," and you get -- Out of Darkness springs the Light. It's almost biblical.

      You want to go "whoa," but then you think of Jar-Jar, and you don't.

      --
      There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
    9. Re:Vader means Father by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it interesting lately that "dad" (dada, papa) in English seems to coincide with "give" in Romance languages (dar, donner, dare).

      Unfortunately, I can come up with no logical link between them since dictionary.com lists "dad" as Of baby-talk origin. The best Yahoo comes up with is an explanation of the etymology of "crawdad", which I think would be a stretch to try to link with "paw".

    10. Re:Vader means Father by Tom+Veil · · Score: 1

      Vader = Invader
      Sidious = Insidious
      Maul = Maul
      Tyranus = Tyranny

      Each one is really pretty appropriate for their respective characters if you think about it, although "Vader" probably is the farthest stretch out of the four.

      --

      There's nothing you have that they can't take away: Absolute zero, Gentle Jack, bottom line.

    11. Re:Vader means Father by dswensen · · Score: 1

      Lucas himself openly said "Vader" is a bastardization of "Father" in a Rolling Stone interview about Star Wars. It's online if you do a bit of digging.

    12. Re:Vader means Father by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and genius sounds like penis. They must mean the same thing.

    13. Re:Vader means Father by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Lucas himself openly said "Vader" is a bastardization of "Father" in a Rolling Stone interview about Star Wars. It's online if you do a bit of digging.

      This interview?

      "It's about Ben and Luke's father and Vader when they are young Jedi knights. But Vader kills Luke's father, then Ben and Vader have a confrontation, just like they have in Star Wars, and Ben almost kills Vader."

      It's pretty obvious that when he wrote Obi Wan's dialogue, he hadn't decided this. Then he added the "true, in a manner of speaking" line as a retcon.

      And he had no idea what a Parsec was either.

    14. Re:Vader means Father by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Lucas is the master of revisionism. Never trust anything he says, especially if it's about his own work.

      It isn't pronounced "Vah-der", it's pronounced "Vay-der". You would think Lucas would catch a blunder like that, instead of making the name sound like "dark invader" and then making him actaully be a dark invader the very first time you see him.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    15. Re:Vader means Father by dswensen · · Score: 1

      Right, well, just cherry-pick whatever you like to substantiate your arguments. If something Lucas said shores up your opinion, then by all means hold him to it. But if it disagrees with your view, he must be the master of revisionism!

    16. Re:Vader means Father by dswensen · · Score: 1

      Nope, this one:

      http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/731486 6

      How did you get the name Darth Vader?

      "Darth" is a variation of dark. And "Vader" is a variation of father. So it's basically Dark Father. All the names have history, but sometimes I make mistakes -- Luke was originally going to be called Luke Starkiller, but then I realized that wasn't appropriate for the character. It was appropriate for Anakin, but not his son. I said, "Wait, we can't weigh this down too much -- he's the one that redeems him."

    17. Re:Vader means Father by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      So, why does he say this now, yet back then he said Vader and Anakin fought? It's not like he needed to add that extra detail to obscure things. He could have just said he faught with Obi Wan.

      I think it was just a lucky coincidence that Vader can be stretched to mean father and over time, Lucas has convinced himeself that that's what he was planning all along. There were no hints that Vader and Anakin might be the same person, apart from the "vader" thing, which could have any number of other explanations, and if it was that important why was it changed to "Dark Vador" in the French dub? The first print of Star Wars Didn't even have the Episode 4: A New Hope subtitle.

    18. Re:Vader means Father by alnjmshntr · · Score: 1

      way to go you stupid dumbass.

      first you trash someone else's theory and come up with your own crackpot one (vader from invader), then when prooof is offered you go all "revionism" and it doesn't sound like "Fah-der".

      what a fucking moron you are.

      --
      If I had created the world I wouldn't have messed about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers
    19. Re:Vader means Father by imadork · · Score: 1

      He inVaded the Jedi temple and killed everyone. I'd say that's not too much of a stretch.

    20. Re:Vader means Father by julesh · · Score: 1

      I don't think he meant Vader to be Father as I think George was writing 4-6 as he was going along ... it wasn't all pre-planned from the beginning.

      My understanding is that he came up with outlines for the plots of all the films that have been made between the release of "Star Wars" (later retitled "Star Wars: Episode IV, A New Hope") and the release of "Empire Strikes Back". How closely he's stuck to that outline is impossible to know.

      This doesn't affect your point, though.

    21. Re:Vader means Father by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      If Lucas had said this BEFORE episode V came out, then I would have believed him. But he said it after the fact. There is no proof because he said this after the fact. The only evidence we have is the integrity of George Lucas. But he has no integrity because his story changes everytime he opens his mouth! He can't even write the script for Episode III (something he claimed he had plotted out in detail thirty years ago) without huge gaping inconsistancies with "later" movies!

      Sheesh. If he can't even keep the Jedi Code consistant from movie to movie, why should I trust him to keep parentage consistant?

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    22. Re:Vader means Father by Brandybuck · · Score: 1
      Here's the full quote. He's explaining why Vader has his mask and breaths funny:

      It's about Ben and Luke's father and Vader when they are young Jedi knights. But Vader kills Luke's father, then Ben and Vader have a confrontation, just like they have in Star Wars, and Ben almost kills Vader. As a matter of fact, he falls into a volcanic pit and gets fried and is one destroyed being. That's why he has to wear the suit with a mask, because it's a breathing mask. It's like a walking iron lung. His face is all horrible inside. I was going to shoot a close-up of Vader where you could see the inside of his face, but then we said, no, no, it would destroy the mystique of the whole thing.


      It shows that Lucas did have some character background (what I claimed earlier), but it also points out how different the 1977 Lucas is from the 2005 Lucas. He didn't have it all plotted out in detail from the beginning, heck, he didn't even have Vader as Luke's father in the beginning!

      Why Lucas and his fanboys have to make excuses for changing his mind is beyond me. There's nothing wrong with changing your mind, what is wrong is lying about it.

      Here's another quote: "In the original script Ben Kenobi doesn't get killed in the fight with Vader." Holy crap! How can you claim you had all six (nine) episodes drafted out in the beginning, when you decide to kill of a major character in the middle episode at the last minute? This proves he isn't prescient, so let's stop worshipping him as a god, okay?
      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    23. Re:Vader means Father by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      So why believe the 2005 Lucas instead of the 1977 Lucas? Was he lying in 1977 or 2005?

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    24. Re:Vader means Father by dswensen · · Score: 1

      I didn't say I believed it one way or the other, I was just pointing out that's what he said.

    25. Re:Vader means Father by dswensen · · Score: 1

      You make some good points. I don't really know where the truth ends and falsehood begins with Lucas, and I imagine no one but Lucas really knows. I just thought the interview was interesting.

    26. Re:Vader means Father by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Yes, the interview was interesting.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  35. Best order by darnvader · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think the best order dramatically is IV, V, I, II, III, VI. You still get the surprise in Empire, and then treat the prequels as an extended flashback, which adds much more weight to the scenes with Luke, Vader and the Emperor in Jedi.

    1. Re:Best order by samhalliday · · Score: 1

      thats a good idea actually. that way you get attached to annakin, and his transformation back to the good side is more powerful. the leia twist still appears as a twist... just in a different movie. i'd mod you up, but i ain't got points today.

    2. Re:Best order by Feneric · · Score: 1

      If you watch 4.5 "A Wookie Holiday" right before the prequels, it makes them seem far less bad in comparison and thus more entertaining...

    3. Re:Best order by jimi+the+hippie · · Score: 1

      I think even better is: IV, V, III, VI. Leave those monstrosities (episodes 1 + 2) out completely.

  36. Darth Vader's prosthetic penis. by CyricZ · · Score: 5, Funny

    When Anakin started to burn up after losing most of his limbs, it is quite possible that his penis was severely burned. Considering that he was engulfed in flames, it is probably safe to say that his penis and scrotum were literally quite gone. Now, my question is, did the Emperor install a prosthetic, mechanical penis onto Darth Vader?

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:Darth Vader's prosthetic penis. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No need. He uses the force

    2. Re:Darth Vader's prosthetic penis. by skingers6894 · · Score: 1

      Noooooooooooooooooo! (Apparently)

    3. Re:Darth Vader's prosthetic penis. by SPY_jmr1 · · Score: 1

      But, But, But, But, would this prosthetic be a simulation of an actual member, or a more mechanical type with matching color scheme?

      If option one, people would laugh at him, and *FORCE CHOKE +9999999* time.

      If option two, it would make him into somewhat of an automatic interracial scene, which would be somewhat novel, I say.

      Oh god. I don't beleive I just wrote this. *burns eyes out with phosphoric acid*

    4. Re:Darth Vader's prosthetic penis. by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      Interesting. And if he buttfucked Princess Leah with it, it be even more interesting!

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    5. Re:Darth Vader's prosthetic penis. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oddly enough, I've always wondered about that. After all, he does wear a codpiece, although it's flat, unlike the bulbous Stormtrooper codpieces.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    6. Re:Darth Vader's prosthetic penis. by SPY_jmr1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Surely you mean: "Impressive... Most Impressive..." and "Princess Leia," don't you?

      *sighs*... Wannabees...

    7. Re:Darth Vader's prosthetic penis. by CyricZ · · Score: 0, Troll

      No. I mean he will bend her over, and incestually fuck her in the ass with his prosthetic, mechanical penis.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    8. Re:Darth Vader's prosthetic penis. by forestgomp · · Score: 1

      Just read through the responses to this, and oddly, there's not one reference to a light[heavy?]saber

    9. Re:Darth Vader's prosthetic penis. by PetriBORG · · Score: 1

      Its probably a screw-on attachment. Its not like he can take his pants off after all... OK, I'm disturbed by my own mind now, thanks.

      --
      Pete/Petri "damn, my chainsaw is clogged with 1's and 0's again." --clyde
    10. Re:Darth Vader's prosthetic penis. by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      But what if it's like R2-D2, with all sorts of probes that can emerge at will? There could be a dildo, a lube dispenser, a condom machine, and that electrozapper thing to make things really fun.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    11. Re:Darth Vader's prosthetic penis. by ZoomieDood · · Score: 0

      Oh great! Now you've given the spammers a NEW sexual stimulant idea to inundate us with!

      Do you want to get it up without ever giving out?
      Do you want to do it with MORE FORCE!
      Do you WANT to know the power of the dark side?

      If you answered yes to any of these questions, stay tuned for this limited time offer of an S&M outfit consisting of an all-black ensemble with a helmet, synthesized voice modes for putting on a more SINISTER role. If you call in now, we'll throw in an instruction book that shows how to utilize finger squeezes to deny oxygen to your "partners" and enhancing their experience. You'll also get a touch tone phone pad to mount to your chest for easily accessible emergency calls by your victims.

      Light sabers are NOT included.

      Good going guy...

    12. Re:Darth Vader's prosthetic penis. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yes.

    13. Re:Darth Vader's prosthetic penis. by Spoing · · Score: 1
      Now, my question is, did the Emperor install a prosthetic, mechanical penis onto Darth Vader?

      Hmmmm...Black leather outfit. Called lord. Obiwan says he's 'more machine than man'. Officers often neal, heads waist high.

      I'm thinking yes, and the thoughts get worse from there.

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    14. Re:Darth Vader's prosthetic penis. by payndz · · Score: 5, Funny
      When Anakin started to burn up after losing most of his limbs, it is quite possible that his penis was severely burned. Considering that he was engulfed in flames, it is probably safe to say that his penis and scrotum were literally quite gone.

      Alternate dialogue from ROTS:

      Vader: Padme... is she all right?
      Emperor: She's fine. But really, I'd forget about her if I were you.
      Vader: Why?
      Emperor: Look down.
      Vader: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

      --
      You must think in Russian.
  37. Anakin brought balance to the force and the fans by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So Anakin not only brought balance to the force, the light side was seriously overrepresented, but also the fans, the light side was seriously overrated. ;-)

  38. Coral Cache... just incase by master0ne · · Score: 1

    http://blogs.starwars.com.nyud.net:8090/ghent/15

    because its a blog i thought a coral link might be useful incase of /.'ing

    --
    Noone writes jokes in base 13!
  39. Ewok with a stick by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 5, Funny

    The more important question is why do they wear armor that can't even take one hit.

    From a blaster or an Ewok with a stick?

    1. Re:Ewok with a stick by Fezmid · · Score: 1

      Yes :)

    2. Re:Ewok with a stick by kfg · · Score: 1

      . . .an Ewok with a stick?

      Ah, but if an Ewok had only come at them with a banana, they were trained and prepared. . .except they couldn't eat it, thus disarming the Ewok, with that stupid helmet on.

      KFG

    3. Re:Ewok with a stick by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      First one then the other.

    4. Re:Ewok with a stick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but their armour wasn't designed with stick-armed Ewoks in mind.
      Anyhow, it was a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, so their armour is probably bakelite ( http://www.deco-echoes.com/bakelite.html ).

  40. *I* call shenanigans by hummassa · · Score: 1

    Neither you nor the parent poster stay around kids very much, it seems.

    I have a 6yo boy. He knows every detail of every film he sees.
    He knows which Teen Titans has which superpowers and weeknesses.
    He knows what a clone is.
    He knows what DNA is, even if he does not grasp the size of atoms and molecules yet.
    His thing is dinosaurs, and when he was three he already knew the difference between stegossaurus and triceratops etc.
    His favorite TV shows are "Wicked Science" and "Strange Days at Blake Holsey High", for the last 2 years.

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
  41. "in Soviet Russia, by ne0n · · Score: 0

    Wars Star YOU!"

    The Russia and Korea jokes finally got to Yoda, might be..

    --
    $ :(){ :|:& };:
  42. Watch them in order, people by AaronStJ · · Score: 1
    From the summary (since I'm a bad persion and didn't read TFA):
    Some enlightening quotes: 'Look... Obi-Wan is pretending he doesn't know R2-D2,' and 'Why don't those ships need Hyperspace rings?'

    Sounds like this kid watched them 1, 2, 3, than 4, 5, 6. If a series is written out of order, it should never, ever be watched/read in order. Always watch or read a series in the order it was created. Otherwise things get all screwy. For example, the writers will put in an inside joke that you won't get yet, or re-use a character in a way that only makes sense out of order (like R2D2). The writer will often assume you know the backstory, so even if a work comes "first" it may rely on previous knowledge. Taking things "out of order" to put them back "in order" is a bad idea.
    --
    Stupid like a fox!
    1. Re:Watch them in order, people by -kertrats- · · Score: 1

      I've found this true in all samples except one: Narnia. That series is an anomaly in that, in my opinion, it's best read in the narrative order than in the order it was written.

      --
      The Braying and Neighing of Barnyard Animals Follows.
    2. Re:Watch them in order, people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that was - how should I put it - the freaking point of the article. Read the headline: 7-year old prequel fan on ANH. Get it? A prequel fan sees A New Hope and comments on it.

  43. Darth did it for Love by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes but keep in mind that Darth turned to the dark side to save his wife, and then turned from the dark side to save his son. See, Darth's all about love. Or that his only loyalty is family and he'll betray anyone. ;-)

    1. Re:Darth did it for Love by eraserewind · · Score: 1

      He threw the emperor down a shaft. How is that turning from the dark side?

    2. Re:Darth did it for Love by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      He saved Luke, thwarting the dark, advancing the light, was "redeemed" in the process, and got to watch the ewoks do their happy dance along side Ben and Yoda. Hey, don't blame me, I didn't write the story.

  44. My order... by MagicDude · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I always felt that when showing the movies to someone who's never seen the movies at all and doesn't know about Luke's father (though most people do know about Vader, since that line is so engrained in pop culture), the proper order should be 4-5-1-2-3-6. Thus you get the story of Darth Vader who's this magic "Force" weilding goon for the empire, and of Luke, this farm boy from a desert planet who also learns of the force from Crazy Old Obi-Wan (Who tells him that Vader killed his father), and then rescues the pricess, joins the rebellion, and kicks ass. Then he goes to learn more of the force from Crazy Green Yoda, but leaves too early to finish his training, gets his butt kicked, and then learns that Vader is his father. Now, start in Episode 1 where you learn how Aniken became a Jedi, how the empire began, and how Aniken became Vader. Now, a small problem with this is that you learn that Leia is Luke's sister right at the end of 3, but that's not so big a deal since Yoda hints at there being another in 5, and you find out about Leia pretty early in 6 anyway. Then after seeing the prequills, you watch ROTJ to see how everything resolves and how Luke redeems Vader and defeats the empire.

    1. Re:My order... by seirui · · Score: 1

      But you forget: Episode 5 ended in Han Solo encased in carbonite, and Luke and crew embarking on the mission to rescue him. If you were watching the movies for the first time, wouldn't you be more interested in Harrison Ford being ok, than watching a hour of boring desert shots before you even get to a pod race? And then you still don't know?

  45. Re:Children are little people by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1

    Some people are more capable of seeing violence. By 7 years old, you should know enough about your child to make that decision. Most parents are going to rely on daycare for raising their children, so they certainly shouldn't bring their child along to ROTS.

    Being a younger member of the slashdot crowd (I'm 20, and live with my parents), I must say I'm disturbed by the constant young age descrimination. You have to learn how to deal with complex emotions sooner or later, and that time is different for everyone. You might want your child to grow up and not face anything ugly, but this is an ugly world and she will see some uglyness eventually. Will you be there to help her through it, or will she be too quick for you and learn everything alone?

    Children are like adults, they perform and act in accordance to what you expect. This is why girls are scared of bugs, and why boys smash them or carry them around in jars. Certainly you understand that girls can love bugs just as much (there's no genetic bug-loving trait determined by gender), they generally do not because it is expected above all that they be clean and pretty.

    Remember the goal of rasing children is just that. When you are done (whenever your child goes to college, or whenever she just stops listening) you want to have an adult. Keeping someone out of trouble isn't a very noble goal, and it's very hard to execute too.

    --
    "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
    1 John 4:14
  46. the death star by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How come it takes the empire about 18 years to build the first death star? They begin construction just after luke's birth and finish it around the time of ep IV when Luke seems to be about 18. Yet the second death star is built much much quicker as Luke hardly seems to age at all between ep IV and ep VI, and they make improvements over the 1st one. Although perhaps they should have considered that small fighters might be a problem this time!

    1. Re:the death star by inkswamp · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Reconsider your assumptions:

      * How do you know it took the whole 18 years to build?

      * How do you know that the second Death Star wasn't already under construction prior to the destruction of the first?

      * Why wouldn't it be quicker to build something if you've already been through the process once before (as if we haven't witnessed that with computers in our own lifetimes)?

      * They DID consider small fighters a problem which is why they were building an improved Death Star in secret so it wouldn't be attacked before it was completed. That was a main plot point in Jedi, that the rebels had discovered what the Empire was doing.

      --
      --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
    2. Re:the death star by quantum+bit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Also, maybe the station itself didn't take that long to build (say, 3-6 years to finish it completely). What if the big delay before revealing the first one was R&D of the superlaser? Without its primary planet-killing weapon, the Death Star is just an oversized, inefficient resource-sucking TIE carrier.

    3. Re:the death star by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and as i've pointed out to others, the ds in jedi _wasn't finished_. how do you know the empire didn't have another 10 years ahead of them on that?

    4. Re:the death star by h3llfish · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The same thing occured to me, and I think there are two ways out of it. One, no one ever said that construction on the second deathstar began right after the first one was destroyed. They could have started much earlier, just to have a backup. Also, it's possible that the first one was delayed by unforeseen engineering challenges. No one had ever built such a device before. But once they had made one, they were experienced deathstar builders, and so were able to built the second much faster.

    5. Re:the death star by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Death star == the emperor's giant monad. Since every sack has two, it's obvious the plan was to have two in the first place. It's just that one got finished first because well, that's the one that hangs a little lower.

  47. No, which is why it is child abuse by anti-NAT · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I have sat with her and watched A New Hope, which she thoroughly enjoyed, but having seen Sith myself, I think the scene of Anakin's "disfigurement" was a wee bit much for a child of her age, and I don't know how mature this guy's seven year old is, but is ANY child of that age ready for something like that?

    I'm amazed people are letting their extemely young children watch movies that are rated at least DOUBLE the age the child is. Are those same parents going to be the ones to complain they don't understand why when their child reaches adolescence and starts shooting other kids at school ?

    I'm all for parents making appropriate choices for their children, and only getting guidence from things such as movie ratings. However, I think a parent is being extremely irresponsible taking a seven year old child to a movie that is rated 15+. Why would it be rated 15+ if the movie is suitable for seven year olds ? They are effectively claiming that their seven year old has the mental maturity of a 15 year old. If a parent went to a PTA meeting and started claiming their seven year old had the mental maturity of a 15 year old, how many other parents would take their claims seriously. I'd think none !

    Maybe there is a chance the child is possibly that mature, it seems to me that the parent isn't !

    --
    The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
    1. Re:No, which is why it is child abuse by pHatidic · · Score: 1

      since when does PG-13 mean 15+? If PG-13 is 15+, then I guess that means I still shouldn't be allowed to see any R movies (age 20).

    2. Re:No, which is why it is child abuse by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      The reason the that the rating would be 15+ (Actually 13+) is because the ratings are designed to cater to the most retarded kid in society. The child abuse is not in letting your child grow abnormally quick. It is in this current attitude that until the child has experienced something, they shouldn't be allowed to experience it, and it is down right harmful.

      Look at where we are at now. People are not considered adults until they are somewhere between 18 and 25. 18 AND 25!!! Just a few generations ago human reached adulthood between 10 and 14.

      And don't try to give me the "we live in more complex times" garbage. We live in the simplest and safest time in history. Not once in my entire life have I had to worry about defending my home from the blood thirsty hordes coming over the hill, just because our crops are in season. Not once have I had help Dad dig a grave because another sibling died in child birth. Not once have I had to worry that me and my family are going to starve to death this winter because we had a bad growing season.

      Life now has become so easy that parents have time to try and "protect" their children from life. Unfortunitly this artificially retards them.

    3. Re:No, which is why it is child abuse by typical · · Score: 1

      The reason the that the rating would be 15+ (Actually 13+) is because the ratings are designed to cater to the most retarded kid in society.

      I still can't figure out why we have age ratings instead of content ratings. "Realistic violence, sexual innuendo, swearing." Okay, great. That's useful information that lets people make a more informed judgement. A "PG-13" rating is a censor making a general decision, based on how long it's been since someone popped out of their mother, about whether that person is best off watching or not watching something.

      --
      Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
    4. Re:No, which is why it is child abuse by Nonoche · · Score: 1

      Here in France, we have different age ratings : 10+, 12+, 16+ and 18+ (the latter being applied only to porn, and not to "artsy" porn)

      RoTS had no age limitation in France. I brought my 7yo step daughter twice, and she had absolutely no problem with that, and quite enjoyed the film. (younger, she was getting scared when I put my vader helmet on though ;)

      Her big sister used to laugh at the monsters in Xena, and they're both hooked with Charmed too. We noticed that what had a tendency to trouble them the most was very sad stuff.

      There are much worse things in fairy tales, actually. And those things are left to their imaginations, which can be much more impressive than images. The thing is, children LOVE being scared, in an environment they can control, that is.

      I also remember watching the anime "Hokuto No Ken" when I was younger (lots of exploding heads and stuff like that), I've played video games all my life, yet I haven't killed anyone yet.

    5. Re:No, which is why it is child abuse by anti-NAT · · Score: 1

      Here in AU, it is 15 years or older.

      Parental responsiblity can only allow so much, after that, you have to start questing the ability of the parent to make a responsible and rational judgement. In my opinion, letting a seven year old see a movie that is rated at near or double the age of the child is the parent being irresponsible.

      --
      The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
    6. Re:No, which is why it is child abuse by anti-NAT · · Score: 1

      So you'd find it acceptable for a seven year old to be taught the explicit details of sex ? A 13 year old knows them, including a number of sexual practices beyond the basic "missionary position". It seems to me that you are suggesting that a seven year old can handle 13 year old plus violence, I think that also indicates that you think a seven year old can also be informed of 13 year old plus knowledge of sex. Is that the case ?

      --
      The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
    7. Re:No, which is why it is child abuse by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      If by tought, you mean that they are aware of it, actually, yes. I knew exactly what sex was by seven. Most kids do, unless their parents do things like take them out in the middle on no where so that they can't see animals. No zoos, no pets. Nothing. Trying to convince yourself that 7 year olds don't know what sex is seems kind of silly.

    8. Re:No, which is why it is child abuse by anti-NAT · · Score: 1

      If by tought, you mean that they are aware of it, actually, yes.

      No, I mean detailed, explicit sexual knowledge that 13 year olds have. If you wouldn't be happy about a seven year old having that level of knowledge about sex, then I think you shouldn't be happy about a seven year old having the same level of detailed and explicity knowledge of violence.

      The major issue here is that the child in question is around half the age the violence is judged to be suitable for. I'd have no problem with a parent saying, for example, that their 11 year old is mature enough to see a 13+ rated movie. 11 is close enough to 13, and the 11 year old may be more mature than their age if they have older siblings. That is their parents decision, and they know the child better than I do. However, when it is such a significant difference between the child's age and the suitability rating, I then have to question the parent's ability to make a proper and sound judgement on the maturity of their child. At a certain point, society has to be watching out for the child, because the parent isn't. I personally think in this case, the parent in question isn't, which is why I think it is child abuse.

      You could argue that it is none of my business about how a child is brought up, however I then think you'd also be saying that it would be none of my business if the parent was making their child participate in child pornography. Society has a responsiblity to look out for children who can't defend themselves, sometimes even from their parents. Exposing a young child to a level of violence that is way beyond their years is a form of mental abuse, and is no different to physical abuse, sexual or otherwise. Society shouldn't accept it or permit it.

      I don't know if it is against the law in the US to show a seven year old a 13+ movie, as it is here in Australia. If it is, I'm tempted to contact the relivent authorities.

      --
      The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
  48. No, you don't by SpooForBrains · · Score: 1

    As briefly outlined in my post of not-much-further down, it's not only fundamentalist right-wing religious "nutjobs" that are concerned over what their children watch.

    --
    "The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
  49. At least he didn't ask... by servognome · · Score: 1

    Hey didn't HAN SHOOT FIRST!?

    So while the ESB ending was spoiled, he doesn't face the permanent scar of knowing how GL so blatantly changed the original movies.

    --
    D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
  50. 4-5-6-1-2-3-4-5-6, agreed by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

    Agreed, you can't get the full experience from watching the series just once. It's like watching Shawshank Redemption - you don't want to know the "end" the first time around, but to really appreciate the movie you've gotta watch it again after knowing the ending.

    I've got 4-5-6 in my blockbuster queue. Apparently enough others have the same idea that there's a waiting list, though.

  51. If... by hummassa · · Score: 4, Funny

    you are implying that the Dark Side is a gay conspiracy, then you are being very, very naughty. :-)

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
  52. bad acting and dialogue by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yep, Eps IV-VI had bad acting and dialogue.

    They succeded better for two reasons:
    1. The directors worked around the bad dialogue a bit better.
    2. Alec Guiness.
    3. By far the biggest, Harrison Ford. Without Harrison Ford there would have been no episode V, let alone VI,I,II,III. He made the character work, he made his dialogue work. He knew the character better than Lucus. He ad-libbed the "I know" response to Leia's "I Love You".

    The other actors and their dialogue varied. Hamill was a great farm boy, a mediocre Jedi. Fisher was terrible all around. But Harrison Ford glued it together and made it work.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:bad acting and dialogue by inkswamp · · Score: 1
      I would agree with that to some extent, but I would say that Ewan MacGregor (and to some extent, Ian McDiarmid) carried that task in the prequels, managing to glue things together despite some of the acting lapses in those around them.

      Consider the theater scene in Sith where Hayden's bland acting is helped considerably by McDiarmid sitting there giving that somewhat chilling recount of the Sith powers and legends.

      That served much of the same purpose that Harrison Ford did in the originals.

      --
      --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
    2. Re:bad acting and dialogue by guidryp · · Score: 1

      Yes. Since I can't mod you up I will add my agreement.

      I watched III and thought it was horrible, so afterwards I popped in ANH and found that it was much better because the actor natural charisma and character that comes across (Namely Guiness and Ford). That is only on the acting, but on a variety of other levels it is the better movie...

    3. Re:bad acting and dialogue by puppet10 · · Score: 1

      I would add James Earl Jones voice acting on Vader up there with Harrison Ford in helping to make it work.

      --
      -------- This space intentionally left blank --------
    4. Re:bad acting and dialogue by Moofie · · Score: 1

      "You were the chosen one!" Pffft.

      "Well, you needn't bother attacking me, because I'm on a small hill. You leap over here, I'm gonna cut all your shit off." (He was channeling Mace Windu for a second there).

      McGregor was no Han Solo. Han Solo was actually funny, and he never did a poop joke.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  53. Starwars is what, exactly? by bw5353 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Ok, mod me down as troll, flamebait, off topic and worse, but before you do that, could you please help me. I'm not into Starwars at all. I've seen one or two on the wide screen once and probably half of some of the other ones, when I still had a tele. I've forgotten most of it. Does anyone know of a web site where they give a short but good description of the main characters only and the main story line for the six films? I really just want the basics, so I don't feel left out when my mother discusses the films with my grandma.

    1. Re:Starwars is what, exactly? by Tanmi-Daiow · · Score: 1
      --
      "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
    2. Re:Starwars is what, exactly? by Ryunosuke · · Score: 1

      www.google.com try "star wars" or, if you're up to it www.starwars.com

    3. Re:Starwars is what, exactly? by bw5353 · · Score: 1

      Good old wikipedia. Thanks for the reminder!

  54. Viewing in numeric order is a travesty! by inkswamp · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'm currently introducing my nine-year-old daughter to Star Wars and am showing her them in release order, not numeric order. We watched A New Hope last weekend and she was blown away. She loved every minute of it and I can't see any benefit to showing her the prequels first.

    To me, one of the greatest thing about Star Wars is the Big Revelation in Empire. Why spoil that? I will be watching Empire tomorrow night with my daughter and I can't wait to see her jaw hit the floor just as the jaws of the collective audience in 1980 hit the floor. If any of you out there have children coming of age and want to show them these films, PLEASE show them in release order. They don't need the prequels to appreciate the original trilogy

    Don't get me wrong. I am one of the few who think the prequels kick ass from start to finish, but why spoil one of the greatest surprises in movie history just to give a lot of back story that doesn't matter much until you've see the originals anyway?

    Besides, for a new viewer, the prequels still contain the surprise of Palpatine being the Emperor so it's just fine to end your viewing of the films with Sith. Palpatine isn't referred to by name in Jedi so there is still a satisfying build-up and climax in the prequels with that revelation (most of us hardcore fans might not realize that because we already knew who he was. New, younger viewers won't.)

    --
    --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
    1. Re:Viewing in numeric order is a travesty! by ivan256 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's exactly the way to do it... All too often things get re-arranged from the order in which the creator presented them into the plot's chronological order.

      A recent upsetting discovery of mine was realizing that children these days are given the C.S. Lewis Chronicles of Narnia with "The Magician's Nephew" as book one instead of last. Not only does it spoil the mystery of things in Narnia for the rest of the series, but it spoils the wonder and pure fan service done by reading "The Magician's Nephew" last. Who ever decided to change the order needs to be shot.

    2. Re:Viewing in numeric order is a travesty! by houghi · · Score: 1

      To me, one of the greatest thing about Star Wars is the Big Revelation in Empire.

      What Big Revelation? I am native Dutch speaking so I knew the whole time that Darth was his Father (vader in Dutch). I never understood the whole turmoil.

      The sixt sense and Fight club had much better and more important plot twisters. For Star Wars it is just a small fact in a much larger epic.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    3. Re:Viewing in numeric order is a travesty! by SewersOfRivendell · · Score: 1

      Thanks, George. Anything else to share with us from Skywalker Ranch?

    4. Re:Viewing in numeric order is a travesty! by Quantum+Jim · · Score: 1

      To me, one of the greatest thing about Star Wars is the Big Revelation in Empire. Why spoil that?

      Personally, relevations and surprises in any art form are mearly one-shot deals. Afterward the initial viewing, they are never surprises again. To me, the real enjoyment of a show is in the journey to the surprise or relevation. That's one reason why I enjoy second-parts and the middle of stories. Besides I wasn't really blown away from the relevation in Empire when watching it so long ago. I had the luxury of watching Jedi immediately afterwards, so that may have colored my experience....

      --
      It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
      - Jerome Klapka Jerome
    5. Re:Viewing in numeric order is a travesty! by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      When did Magician's Nephew ever come last? In our original set it's the second book in the series.

      But anyhoo, C.S. Lewis himself was behind the new ordering. Read his Letters to Children and he gives the new ordering in reply to a child's question on the best order to read the books.

      So while you and I prefer the original ordering, Lewis didn't.

    6. Re:Viewing in numeric order is a travesty! by LetterJ · · Score: 1

      I also agree about twists in movies. If they are the sole payoff, there's no real re-watchability to them. A lot of horror and suspense movies have this problem. I generally prefer movies where you can enjoy them at least as much and sometimes MORE if you know how it turns out.

      That and the fact that Annakin's fall to the dark side surprise is sort of the flip-side to the parenthood surprise. If you watch in numeric order, that Annakin falls is "new" to you. If you watch in release order, it's obvious that he's going to fall, but the parenthood is a surprise.

      Either way, if you're entirely new to the series, there is a surprise.

    7. Re:Viewing in numeric order is a travesty! by zerocool^ · · Score: 1


      I'd even go 1 further and suggest watching the "THX" version of the movies, and not the special editions or the DVD versions. I don't give a fuck about the remastered scene in Jaba's palace - I can't stand CGI for the sake of CGI, which is exactly what that was. It looked cool when they redid it, but even a year or two later, it looked dated and gay. I like puppets. CGI characters, no matter how much real physics ragdoll modeling you do, will never behave like real physical objects. See also: JarJar jumping and doing a backflip into the water in episode 1. Also, I want my kid to see Han Solo fire first. Period. Han solo is a smuggler and a scoundrel. He's not a hero or a saint - he saves his own ass. Plus, the remake looks unnatural.

      ~Will

      --
      sig?
    8. Re:Viewing in numeric order is a travesty! by DroopyStonx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Eh... Palpatine being the Emperor was not really a surprise considering they're played by the SAME ACTOR.

      Emperor Palpatine, Senator Palpatine? I mean... really...

      --
      We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
    9. Re:Viewing in numeric order is a travesty! by inkswamp · · Score: 1
      That connection is never made by name in the films. The original trilogy does not contain the name Palpatine. Also, I don't think most casual viewers would realize that the Emperor in Jedi and the guy in Phantom Menace are the same actor due to the change in his looks.

      --
      --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
    10. Re:Viewing in numeric order is a travesty! by anakin876 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      second? The original order (as published) was
      1. Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe
      2. Prince Caspian
      3. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
      4. The Silver Chair
      5. A Horse and His Boy
      6. The Magician's Nephew
      7. The Last Battle
      When I was younger (and lacking new things to read) I read all 7 books 7 times in a month (yeah - I read fast and was about 10 or 11 - not much to do at the time). I tried both the publishing order and a Chronological order - I found the original publishing order to be the best. Of course - Mr. Lewis did express a "mild preference" for the newer ordering - but I will be reading them to my children (if they want me to) in the original order in which they were published.
      check out this page for more info on published/chronological/order in which the books were written.
      http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/narnia.htm

    11. Re:Viewing in numeric order is a travesty! by Saeger · · Score: 1

      I'm confused: how could your nine-year-old not have seen Star Wars 1-3 yet? There are re-runs on TV all the time. ..... Seriously, how? Just a coincidence? (or are you really that over-protective?)

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    12. Re:Viewing in numeric order is a travesty! by hawks5999 · · Score: 1

      I believe Mon Mothma mentions Palpatine by name during the briefing before the attack on the second death star. I'll have to double-check.

    13. Re:Viewing in numeric order is a travesty! by inkswamp · · Score: 1
      I *do* very carefully monitor her TV viewing and limit it to no more than a couple hours a day at most (less than that or none at all, if possible.) Given the utter load of shit that TV has become nowadays, I don't consider that being overprotective... just being a good parent.

      --
      --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
    14. Re:Viewing in numeric order is a travesty! by inkswamp · · Score: 1
      I just checked. We're both right to some extent. At least, according to the script, she only refers to him as "the emperor" in her dialogue. However, doing a search for "palpatine" on the script itself reveals that Ian McDiarmid is credited as "Emperor Palpatine" in the cast list. I'll have to watch the credits next time I watch Jedi and see if he's really listed that way.

      I would still say that most casual fans and younger viewers aren't going to catch that especially since the full cast list doesn't start scrolling until midway through the ending credits. I've watched Jedi over 40 times at this point and never once caught that myself.

      --
      --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
    15. Re:Viewing in numeric order is a travesty! by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      Anyone reading the first page of the original Star Wars novel will know that the Emperor's name is Palpatine. Of course, many won't read the novels. (But I'd say there's a good chance some might pick it up and see the first page.)

  55. It's all about the hot grits. by glrotate · · Score: 1

    Portman or Fisher?

    1. Re:It's all about the hot grits. by kc32 · · Score: 1

      Portman.

    2. Re:It's all about the hot grits. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its all about Leia in the scene with Jaba the Hut. Oh, thats sick!

  56. Unfortunately, the originals have been bastardized by simetra · · Score: 1

    and turned to CRAP. I rented the first, "original" Star Wars so my young son could watch it, and it was totally screwed. I will only watch the first 3 in their theatrical release format from now on, if they still exist. Going back and muppetizing movies should be a crime punishable by being ass-raped by a gorilla.

    I won't bother watching the next 3 steaming piles of crap.

    --

    "Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
  57. Other such observations by beforewisdom · · Score: 1

    - in the first prequel mention of other relatives on tatoonie was never made. If there were releatives why didn't they try to get darth vader and his mom out of slavery?

    - Obi Wan is OLD, in the first Star Wars, but none of the Jedi are that old in the prequels. I guess their lifestyle contributes to them getting killed off.

    1. Re:Other such observations by EZLeeAmused · · Score: 1

      Actually, they were only relatives because of Anakin's mom's marriage after Anakin left Tattooine.

      --
      Some see the vessel as half full; others see it as half-empty; We pour it out on the floor and laugh
    2. Re:Other such observations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were no relatives in the first prequel. Anakin's mom is bought by a moisture farmer who later marries her. Uncle Owen is Anakin's half or step brother (I can't remember which).

      Yoda is almost 900yrs old and there is no way of knowing how old
      the other alien species are. But I do find it strange all the humans are young.

    3. Re:Other such observations by beforewisdom · · Score: 1

      Wow, I missed a lot.

      All I remember is that Darth Vader's mom and he were slaves. Darth Vader gets taken away from tatoonie by Obi Wan and his Master. When he comes back to look for his mother he finds her being held by sand people or some other humnoid. He gets pissed and kills them.

      I don't remember seeing anything about moisture farmers or half brothers.

      I guess I need to see the film again.

  58. OH FOR GODs SAKE!!! by THEUBERGEEK · · Score: 5, Funny

    OK people, pay attention and learn something There have been tech advances in the 20 years since the "end" of eps 3 and the start of 4 Obi-Wan did not "recognize" R2D2 because he was not supposed to let on what had been happening, obviously he had been training himself to hide from Vader. Uncle Owen did not recognize C3PO because threepio did not have coverings when he was on that farm previously. In additon there are probably MILLIONS of similar protocol droids, recall the one that threepio ran into on Bespin? Vader walked like "frankenstein" because he was 1) in pain, 2) using new prostheses 3) probably having problems breathing He shouted NNNOOOOO!!!! because he went through everything he did in order to SAVE his wife and yet he has been told HE killed her. Would eny of you done differently? AND FINALLY>>>> you people need to quit trying to apply EARTH and HUMAN values and concepts to what is supposed to be an ALIEN and NON_TERRAN society, these people were not meant to think like you and me, their culture is considerably different than the USofA

    --
    Talking to Geeks is like eating jello with a chainsaw, interesting, but painful.
    1. Re:OH FOR GODs SAKE!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      considerably different than the USofA

      Yeah the universe supposedly stops at the US Borders.

    2. Re:OH FOR GODs SAKE!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No, it doesn't stop there. It's just that only evil exists beyond there. I thought our president explained that to everyone!?

    3. Re:OH FOR GODs SAKE!!! by bhirsch · · Score: 1

      All six movies were written and directed by an American and starred almost all American actors (nevermind that 100% of the people involved in the movies were TERRAN). Get off your politically correct high horse when you are talking about main-stream American cinema.

    4. Re:OH FOR GODs SAKE!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was having this really dense political conversation with my friends earlier.

      The question was posed, when do street gangs become terrorists?

      The reply came, "when George Bush says so".

      Seemed relevant, slightly.

    5. Re:OH FOR GODs SAKE!!! by Scootesti · · Score: 1

      yeah, because the USofA is definately the defining values of the entire planet...

      --
      "So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet
    6. Re:OH FOR GODs SAKE!!! by arevos · · Score: 1

      Try reading this aloud in your best Comic Book Guy voice. It makes a lot more sense that way.

    7. Re:OH FOR GODs SAKE!!! by Blondie-Wan · · Score: 1
      All six movies were written and directed by an American and starred almost all American actors (nevermind that 100% of the people involved in the movies were TERRAN). Get off your politically correct high horse when you are talking about main-stream American cinema.

      Er, actually, Episode VI: Return of the Jedi director Richard Marquand was Welsh, and there are so many non-American actors throughout all six films I can't possibly name them all, plenty of them in major roles.

    8. Re:OH FOR GODs SAKE!!! by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      you people need to quit trying to apply EARTH and HUMAN values and concepts to what is supposed to be an ALIEN and NON_TERRAN society

      The main characters in Star Wars are human. This is stated throughout the scripts.

    9. Re:OH FOR GODs SAKE!!! by THEUBERGEEK · · Score: 1

      ALIEN as in NOT OF THIS CULTURE, not always does alien mean non-human, and whether they were human genetically does not mean they were TERRAN HUMAN

      --
      Talking to Geeks is like eating jello with a chainsaw, interesting, but painful.
    10. Re:OH FOR GODs SAKE!!! by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Hey, you're the one who said "HUMAN" first, not me. I'm just pointing out that it's perfectly reasonable to apply HUMAN values to characters which claim to be HUMAN, especially when those characters exhibit mainly HUMAN characteristics. Yes, their environment is different, but that doesn't change BASIC HUMAN VALUES.

    11. Re:OH FOR GODs SAKE!!! by bhirsch · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're right. Star Wars isn't American cinema after all.

    12. Re:OH FOR GODs SAKE!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a straw man, you gimp.

    13. Re:OH FOR GODs SAKE!!! by Blondie-Wan · · Score: 1

      I never said any such thing. I merely corrected your assertions they were all directed by an American (false) and starred almost entirely American actors (also false). I never said they weren't American movies, and I wouldn't say that; I know very well they are indeed American films. They simply do have substantial contributions from non-Americans, to the point that your post was grossly erroneous.

    14. Re:OH FOR GODs SAKE!!! by bhirsch · · Score: 1

      The only thing erroneous about what I said was that they were all written and directed by an American, when one out of the six was only written by Lucas, but not directed by it. Out of all six, the starring cast members were still American with the exception of Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, Amidala, and Palpatine.

      At any rate, the bulk of the creative influence for the movies came from Americans, hence the absurdity of blasting people for looking at the movies from the perspectives of Americans. Even those who were not American and involved in the movies were from Western countries with similar enough political and social climates to the US's to the point that their national origin would in all likelihood not have been a differentiating factor in how they contributed to the movies. In other words, they came from countries with modern liberal democracies where people have similar standards of living to those in the US. We are not talking about people from the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, China, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc.

    15. Re:OH FOR GODs SAKE!!! by Blondie-Wan · · Score: 1
      The only thing erroneous about what I said was that they were all written and directed by an American, when one out of the six was only written by Lucas, but not directed by it.

      Er, no. Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, though conceived by Lucas like all the others, was directed by Irvin Kershner.

      Out of all six, the starring cast members were still American with the exception of Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, Amidala, and Palpatine.

      Obviously just how significant a role is meant by "starring" is debateable, but for the sake of argument, let's say, oh, actors whose participation is significant enough that they're listed in the major credits shown on the posters. With that, the "starring" actors include:


      Hayden Christensen (Canadian) - Anakin Skywalker
      David Prowse (British) - embodiment of Darth Vader
      Kenny Baker (British) - R2-D2
      Anthony Daniels (British) - C-3PO
      Peter Mayhew (British) - Chewbacca
      Pernilla August (Swedish) - Shmi Skywalker
      Peter Cushing (British) - Grand Moff Tarkin
      Christopher Lee (British) - Count Dooku

      (Incidentally, though Natalie Portman was born in Israel, I think she qualifies as an American.)

      At any rate, the bulk of the creative influence for the movies came from Americans, hence the absurdity of blasting people for looking at the movies from the perspectives of Americans. Even those who were not American and involved in the movies were from Western countries with similar enough political and social climates to the US's to the point that their national origin would in all likelihood not have been a differentiating factor in how they contributed to the movies. In other words, they came from countries with modern liberal democracies where people have similar standards of living to those in the US. We are not talking about people from the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, China, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc.

      Agreed, but that's not relevant to the discussion. You were replying to a post that said:

      AND FINALLY>>>> you people need to quit trying to apply EARTH and HUMAN values and concepts to what is supposed to be an ALIEN and NON_TERRAN society, these people were not meant to think like you and me, their culture is considerably different than the USofA

      That's about the cultures and politics of the worlds in the movies, not about the cultures and politics of the world that imagined them. You responded as though it were some political statement about the US:

      Get off your politically correct high horse when you are talking about main-stream American cinema.

      But that has nothing to do with the point the parent was making, and I wasn't even directly addressing that part of it; I just pointed out that "(a)ll six movies were written and directed by an American and starred almost all American actors" was wrong. And it is.

    16. Re:OH FOR GODs SAKE!!! by bhirsch · · Score: 1
      The only thing erroneous about what I said was that they were all written and directed by an American, when one out of the six was only written by Lucas, but not directed by it.
      Er, no. Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, though conceived by Lucas like all the others, was directed by Irvin Kershner.

      Isn't that what I stipulated to? I asserted that six movies were credited with the same writer and director when one had a different director. Eleven out of twelve is still close enough for my original point to be valid.

      Darth Vader, Chewbacca, C-3PO, and R2-D2 hardly count as starring roles, let alone roles in the traditional sense. I would definitely give you both Obi-Wans and Palpatine as starring non-Americans though.

      To reiterate my last post: "The only thing erroneous about what I said was that they were all written and directed by an American, when one out of the six was only written by Lucas, but not directed by it."

      The post I originally replied to implied we should be taking these films in some galactic context, and not as if we were humans from earth, let alone the US. That is simply absurd.

    17. Re:OH FOR GODs SAKE!!! by Blondie-Wan · · Score: 1
      Isn't that what I stipulated to? I asserted that six movies were credited with the same writer and director when one had a different director. Eleven out of twelve is still close enough for my original point to be valid.
      No - jeez, you've already forgotten the earlier exchange, where I mentioned Richard Marquand? Yow. Ok, let's get it straight here - George Lucas conceived the whole shebang, and directed Episodes I, II, III, and IV (though not in that order, of course). Episode V was directed by Irvin Kershner. Episode VI was directed by Richard Marquand, who is not American. In other words, 1) fully a third of the overall saga is directed by people other than George Lucas (which in and of itself isn't really relevant to the films' Americanness, but does establish you didn't quite know what you were talking about), and 2) one of the films is indeed directed by a non-American, so your claim that all six were directed by an American is simply incorrect, which removes one of the two "facts" you gave to support your argument. Let's move on to the other...

      Darth Vader, Chewbacca, C-3PO, and R2-D2 hardly count as starring roles, let alone roles in the traditional sense. I would definitely give you both Obi-Wans and Palpatine as starring non-Americans though.

      Wrong again. That they all involve masked or inhuman characters and that two of them don't speak intelligible human languages does not change the fact that actors portrayed them just as actors portrayed Luke, Leia, Qui-Gon, Shmi, Padmé, Han, etc. Moreover, at least three of those four are very significant characters indeed - the whole six-episode story arc is about Anakin's rise, fall, transformation to Vader and redemption, and Vader is one of the key characters in the whole saga, while Artoo and Threepio are two of the only characters to appear in all the films, and are also the ones from whose point of view the story is largely told. They're essential to the storylines. And yes, they required actors on the set, wearing the costumes and interacting with the other actor / characters. They're totally starring roles.

      To reiterate my last post: "The only thing erroneous about what I said was that they were all written and directed by an American, when one out of the six was only written by Lucas, but not directed by it."

      As I said: two of the six, not one, and one of those two was directed by a non-American.

      The post I originally replied to implied we should be taking these films in some galactic context, and not as if we were humans from earth, let alone the US. That is simply absurd.

      No, it is not absurd that there might be cultural and political differences between the invented worlds of the Star Wars saga and the reality that exists on Earth in general and in the USA in particular, which is what the parent post was about.

      Nobody was saying that US audiences shouldn't look at the films through the framework of the realities of their own experience. What was said is that the story may (does) depict things that differ from strict reality simply by virtue of being set in a completely artificial setting (even if it's inspired by actualities), and as such, it's free to feature differences in behavior from the way humans act on Earth.

  59. Poor child... by azuroff · · Score: 1

    Unless dad had the wisdom to show him the original Episode IV, he'll grow up forever thinking that Greedo fired first.

    The path to the dark side revising history is, George...

  60. Obi-Wan never owned a droid? by inkswamp · · Score: 1
    I love how the prequels cast some otherwise insignificant lines of dialogue in the original films in a new light.

    Obi-Wan: "I don't seem to recall ever owning a droid."

    Ahem... perhaps you forgot about Grievous? :^)

    Definitely owned.

    --
    --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
    1. Re:Obi-Wan never owned a droid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah but grievous was a cyborg, not a droid. :P

    2. Re:Obi-Wan never owned a droid? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      So uncivilized...

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    3. Re:Obi-Wan never owned a droid? by Ichigo+Kurosaki · · Score: 1

      Grevious was not a droid. Didnt you see his heart in III? Sorry for the nit pick

    4. Re:Obi-Wan never owned a droid? by fideli · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that he owned R4-G9, the droid that was assigned to his ship. Perhaps in a re-re-re-released version of ANH, Obi-Wan could say, "I don't seem to recall ever owning a droid, but I did lease one for a bit."

    5. Re:Obi-Wan never owned a droid? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      Grevious was not a droid. Didnt you see his heart in III?

      After screwing up the Han-Greedo, the Han-steps-on-Java,the R2D2-has-to-be-everywhere-because-hes-the-hero crap, and oh no please, that Vader NOOOO, I'm beginning to wonder if Lucas is not a droid himself.

    6. Re:Obi-Wan never owned a droid? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      I'd love to see a story about the week or two while the droids were on tattoine. Obi-Wan had to know instantly it was THAT R2-D2. He can't spill the beans that that droid WAS Luke's fathers, watching his sister... Other than the OH-$**t it's time to start the final battle. Obviously, Owen lars told him to stay away.. and in a certian way Luke had the humble beginning he needed to be a Jedi... the powers are easy to teach.

  61. like, ahem, the marines ... by mbaudis · · Score: 0

    ... to the rest of the world? well, not that they have succeeded so far.

  62. Re:Unfortunately, the originals have been bastardi by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

    I have the VHS tapes released as a colleciton all original, including Han shooting first, I really need to find out how to demacrovision a video signal in order to copy the tapes to a better format than VHS tape before they wear out.

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  63. Biggest Plot Hole In The Last Three by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


    Here we have dozens of Jedi walking around going, "The Force is strong with you, bozo!" to everybody in the story - except Palpatine - the one guy with enough Force to fry Mace Windu and blow Yoda on his ass!

    What's wrong with this picture?

    Sure, they suspected he was a grubby politician, but even Mace Windu, on being directly informed by Anakin that Palpatine was a Sith Dark Lord, goes "Are you sure?" Gimme a break, Mace! How about: "Search your feelings - you know this to be true!" would be a nice line at that point!

    As for Yoda, greenie baby, you must have been doing something seriously wrong!

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    1. Re:Biggest Plot Hole In The Last Three by inkswamp · · Score: 1
      It's repeatedly hinted at in the prequels that the dark side is clouding the Jedi's vision (thus, they sense the 'phantom menace' but don't know what it is.) Palpatine is using some kind of dark side power to hide from them in plain sight, to disguise who he is, including real appearance. That's why, during the intense battle with Mace Windu, his real face emerges. He's pouring so much energy into the battle that he can't maintain the facade.

      --
      --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
    2. Re:Biggest Plot Hole In The Last Three by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


      Well, it's nice they made SOME attempt to cover this gaping hole. I once thought up the same notion as a possible addition to the "Highlander" series - have some immortals which other immortals could not sense which would give them an edge.

      One could also complain that the Jedi weren't very smart to so seriously misread the "prophecy" about Anakin. Their training seems to be seriously lax if any number of their top people (Count Dooku, Anakin, the other "Missing Jedi") could just dump decades of training and switch sides. It should have been obvious to them that Obi Wan wasn't doing that great a job with Anakin, and that Anakin had serious problems.

      Oh, well, it's only a relatively simple story and it only gets deep if you try to explain its ramifications in detail.

      Also, I'm just miffed that one of my favorite characters in the second prequel, Count Dooku, lost his head early on in this one. And Natalie didn't have much to do but sit around and look pregnant.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    3. Re:Biggest Plot Hole In The Last Three by It's+Impossible · · Score: 1



      "Here we have dozens of Jedi walking around going, "The Force is strong with you, bozo!" to everybody in the story - except Palpatine - the one guy with enough Force to fry Mace Windu and blow Yoda on his ass! What's wrong with this picture?"

      You give the Jedi too much credit. Just as they took too much credit.

      The Librarian in Episode II made clear the dominant belief of the Jedi: If it's not in the Jedi Library, it must not exist!

      Jedi faith that the order was infallible became the downfall of the Jedi. Which, y'know, is the whole point. Anakin too believes that his ascendence is unquestionable, that his powers are beyond reproach. The line between dark and light side, as it pertains to that kind of hubris, is blurry and seductive, even to the ostensibly untouchable Council.

      And when they fail, they really, really fail.

    4. Re:Biggest Plot Hole In The Last Three by It's+Impossible · · Score: 1



      "One could also complain that the Jedi weren't very smart to so seriously misread the 'prophecy' about Anakin."

      Did they?

      Who tosses Palpatine down the shaft?

      Anakin's unlikely redemption restores balance to the force, not Luke's whining. ;)

    5. Re:Biggest Plot Hole In The Last Three by smash · · Score: 1
      One could also complain that the Jedi weren't very smart to so seriously misread the "prophecy" about Anakin.

      They predicted that he would be the one to restore the balance.

      He was. It was *VADER* who killed the emporor (throwing him into the death star core), not luke.

      smash.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    6. Re:Biggest Plot Hole In The Last Three by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      Actually, the best hiding spot for a Sith Lord would be under the very noses of the Jedi, as his presence would not be felt under the overwhelming 'noise' of the Light Side.

      Example: Yoda could hide away in Dagobah because there was a cave ripe with the Dark Side nearby, remember (a dead Dark Jedi lay there); from overhead, both cancelled each other out, thus Yoda was undetectable. I expect Kenobi had a similar arrangement in Tatooine, as in ANH Vader did not detect him on the planet, but immediately sensed his presence on the Death Star.

      As a bonus to Palpatine, a Sith Lord's presence close to Jedi HQ would diminish the strenght of the Light Side, just a little bit. Remember Mace Windu's comments to Yoda on AOTC, how could they not detect the creation of a clone army?

      Extremely ballsy and clever, that Palpatine.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    7. Re:Biggest Plot Hole In The Last Three by vidarh · · Score: 1
      I've always seen it as the jedi being too blinded to see the significance of the prophecy. Sure, Anakin is the person the prophecy talks about - he does bring balance to the force. However, it should be obvious that when you have two opposing sides to something, and one is very strong (the large number of jedi's) and one is significantly weakened (the sith nearly eradicated), then bringing balance is unlikely to be a very good for the the strong side.

      It's not a plot hole as such - it's common for sects to interpret prophecies in a way that benefit them and overlook glaring errors in their interpretation - but it keeps annoying me.

      But the stupidity is at least consistent: The jedi are throughout the series arrogant, overconfident, complacent and generally detached from reality. They had it coming.

    8. Re:Biggest Plot Hole In The Last Three by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... Good point.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    9. Re:Biggest Plot Hole In The Last Three by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      Yup. Good point. They got their time-line seriously wrong, is all, I guess.

      OTOH, one could argue that it was Luke sparing his father's life and refusing to turn to the Dark Side that was the catalyst for his father's redemption.

      OTOH, one could argue that without Anakin birthing Luke, it wouldn't have happened either.

      The real lesson might be that circumstances and consequences are what they are and it's pointless to prophesize when one cannot control the universe. Just act as if the consequences will be and are perfect - both before and after those consequences occur. Which is not to say one can't learn from those consequences.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    10. Re:Biggest Plot Hole In The Last Three by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


      I think there's a detection limit. Vader could sense people close to him (such as Luke sensing him on the Death Star in Return and Vader reaching out to him in Empire), but detecting someone from orbit might be more difficult. When they sense people's deaths, as Yoda does in the current one or Obi-Wan does when the planet is destroyed in the first one, it's more general - changes in the Force.

      If Jedi could sense people across thousands of miles or even light-years, nobody could have hidden from them, Jedi or not.

      As for how the Jedi missed the clone army, well, none of the clones were Jedi and presumably the Force would have told them nothing. The question Mace presented was how could this have happened despite all their intelligence operations? In particular, since Count Dooku, a powerful former Jedi and presumably the object of Jedi intelligence operations, was behind that particular part of Palpatine's plan. The whole "Lost Jedi" thing would have been impossible if the Jedi could sense anybody anywhere.

      As for the light side "noise", I suppose that might be possible, but you still have to wonder why Palpatine's presence only created a "sense" that something in general was wrong and not something more specific.

      I tend to go along with the poster who suggested the Jedi were victims of the thing they constantly counseled others against - over-confidence in their own superiority and awareness of the situation. Even Yoda and Mace Windu had this flaw in my opinion.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    11. Re:Biggest Plot Hole In The Last Three by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


      I've always wanted to see a Star Wars story set after the first three, where a new Sith menace appears, and Luke and the others go seeking the "First Jedi" - the guy who discovered the Force thousands of years ago, who trained Yoda, etc.

      And they find this guy in a bar/brothel, running the show, immortal, kicked back and uninterested in anything going on in the Universe except as necessary to preserve his own life.

      And he tells them - like the Firesign Theater - "Everything you know is wrong." There is no Dark Side, no Light Side, it's all a matter of perspective and purpose, that there is no prophecy, and that Yoda never did understand the real Jedi philosophy and the whole Jedi Council thing was a total waste of time. And he only gets involved in the new Sith menace because he feels like it, not because he gives a shit.

      And this guy is no joke, either, as he can kill an entire company of Storm Troopers by just walking past them. No choking, no electric bolts - they just die when his eyes narrow. And when he DOES throw bolts, he can blow up a Star Destroyer or a Death Star single-handed.

      That's the Star Wars story I want to see.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  64. Other countries' movie rating systems by tepples · · Score: 1

    since when does PG-13 mean 15+?

    PG-13 is a trademark of the Motion Picture Association of America. MPAA ratings apply in the USA and influence the ratings used in interprovince distribution of home videos in Canada. Other movie rating boards operate in other countries; these may either be administered by a movie industry trade group or by a communications. The ones that aren't affiliated with the MPAA have other rating systems; one may have, say, 7+, 12+, and 15+.

    1. Re:Other countries' movie rating systems by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Does that mean that a 15 year old Swiss child is as mature, on average, as a 13 year old American or a 7 year old Japanese child? Fuck no. They're arbitrary ratings.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    2. Re:Other countries' movie rating systems by tepples · · Score: 1

      Does that mean that a 15 year old Swiss child is as mature, on average, as a 13 year old American or a 7 year old Japanese child?

      Never said it did. But there are two things that may cause different ratings:

      1. If a movie is deemed suitable for the median 13-year-old, and your system has 10+ and 14+, then the board will most surely assign a 14+ rather than a 10+.
      2. Some cultures assign different weights to language vs. violence vs. sexuality. For instance, in the United States, it's easier to get an R based on sex than an R based on violence because CARA, the film ratings board affiliated with the MPAA, are more sensitized to violence. European ratings boards may be desensitized to sexuality.
    3. Re:Other countries' movie rating systems by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Well, that, and it demonstrates the absurdity of such a ratings system in the first place.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
  65. so what is the us? by mbaudis · · Score: 1

    the current u.s. policy is inept, inefficient, complicated, but with some simple world view: god and money. at least the current government, supported by ca. 51% of the actively voing population.

    an inept pre-dictatorship? no, thanks.

    1. Re:so what is the us? by xQx · · Score: 1

      51% of the counted votes... In a perfect world that would be the same thing as "51% of the actively voting population"

      Score: -1 offtopic.

    2. Re:so what is the us? by mbaudis · · Score: 1

      offtopic? i thought it was about evil empires. sorry, may have gotten the icon wrong.

      now, about the perfect world... hello? why is it so dark hereIOfhpug yefnfwc ewAFGnnnnnnnnnn

      I deeply apologize to everybody for everything.

    3. Re:so what is the us? by Kagenin · · Score: 1

      Oligarchy - Rule by the most Rich.

      Kleptocracy - Rule by the most skilled thieves.

      The US government is right now largly a mix of the above systems. That's what happens when the media browns on their obligations to fair, independant, and informative, leading the public in to a state of apathy and political catatonia.

      --
      "All warfare is based on deception."
      Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"
    4. Re:so what is the us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why am I not surprised that you believe stupid shit? Oh, because you don't know what "oligarchy" means.

  66. Best line ever: by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

    "So, does this mean that R2-D2 is really the main character in Star Wars?"

    However, it reminds me of a thought I had regarding the series: What if the whole series was actually formed from the perspective of Anakin Skywalker when he was killed in Return of the Jedi?

    The evidence is simple, everyone has selective memory no matter what. He remembers himself and everything around him as a youth as more or less an optimistic illusion.

    One classic example of this concept is Ronald Reagan's visit to his home town, described as a bastion to Americana, from the good old days. Reagan, however, visably shuddered upon returning.

    In this case, Anakin viewed himself as being only slightly annoyed at being a slave, but otherwise an innocent "whoopie" shouting boy. Now if YOU were the second in command of the Empire, wouldn't you be more than happy to nuke the Hutts in retaliation for holding and selling you as a slave? For that matter, why not just use Tattoine as the first test target for the Death Star? He had no ties to that planet, other than hatred and sorrow (and of course the Sand People who killed his mother).

    Using the same assumption, it would seem realistic that he would also conveniently forget about some of Obi Wan's later associations with the droids he owned/built, or be able to sense Obi Wan's presence on that planet (since he didn't have the convenience of the force cloaking fauna of Dagobah). One would think that, with force abilities somewhere between Vader and the Emperor, you'd show up pretty well as a blip on their radar no matter how much you try to hide yourself.

    So perhaps from that point of view (as Lucas loves to put it), you could say all 6 episodes were really just Vader being maudlin and nostalgic.

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    1. Re:Best line ever: by Tanmi-Daiow · · Score: 1
      "or be able to sense Obi Wan's presence on that planet (since he didn't have the convenience of the force cloaking fauna of Dagobah). One would think that, with force abilities somewhere between Vader and the Emperor, you'd show up pretty well as a blip on their radar no matter how much you try to hide yourself."

      But think about on Coruscant, there were thousands of Jedi walking around and none of them could sense Palpatine. And we all know how powerful he was.

      --
      "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
    2. Re:Best line ever: by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

      That's true, but on the other hand, selective memory is a funny thing. Maybe he subconsciously blocked himself from sensing Kenobi. I mean seriously, Jedi can view the future, but he didn't think of destroying Tatooine and saving himself the hassles Luke, Han, Obi Wan, and Chewbacca would eventually cause him?

      Ouch, now I'm sounding like a Star Wars fanboy.

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    3. Re:Best line ever: by grumling · · Score: 1
      "So, does this mean that R2-D2 is really the main character in Star Wars?"

      According to the commentary tracks (and several interviews), when Lucas was writing the treatment, he thought of the main characters as the two 'droids. Everyone else was just someone for them to interact with.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
  67. ANH by CaptMattman · · Score: 1

    It's a pity that the prequels were spoiled, that the DVDs for the original films were spoiled with added new features rather than the original theatrical movies. They should release special DVDs that have the original, non-jazzed up version of the movies.

    --
    -Mattman
    http://OneBillion.blogspot.com
  68. Re:Children are little people by cranos · · Score: 1

    You know what, I cannot wait until you have kids of your own. When you hold your child for the first time a switch gets thrown that says you must protect them from all the ills in the world, whether its a scrape on the knee or its objectionable material in the media.

    I have three kids, 7, 2 and six weeks old. My seven year old son is extremely bright, topping his classes, however I still have to vet what he watches and reads. Children are incredibly impressionable and while you may not want to end up with a social vegetable at the same time you do not want to end up with an adult who is numb from the neck up or worse.

  69. Wookie Survivors by Servo5678 · · Score: 4, Funny
    - "Is Chewbacca the only Wookiee that survives the Clone Wars?" (with great concern)

    No, there is another.

    1. Re:Wookie Survivors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a few. Don't forget Malla, Itchy, Scratchy, Lumpy, etc. from the Holiday Special.

    2. Re:Wookie Survivors by Feneric · · Score: 1
      There's a few. Don't forget Malla, Itchy, Scratchy, Lumpy, etc. from the Holiday Special.

      I don't think that Lumpy technically can be said to have survived the Clone Wars as he was born several years after they ended.

      "Itchy", though, is a more interesting matter. Does anyone know if he's the other Wookie that was hanging with Chewbacca and Yoda in "Sith"? If so, he really went downhill fast, and no light was shed on where he got his thing for human women...

    3. Re:Wookie Survivors by happyslayer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Which brings up my thought during ROTS: Chewbacca went from being a mighty general who fought with Yoda to a smuggler who hangs out in Moes-Eisly space port. What dark path did he follow?

      • Selling Meth to the Ewoks?
      • Smuggling Ridlin in for the Jawas?
      • And then there were those movies a few years ago that he just doesn't want to talk about...but he needed the money.
      --
      Never confuse movement with action. --Hemingway
    4. Re:Wookie Survivors by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      no, but we know they were used as slave labor, many non-human races were, That's how han saved chewie. That at the same time, the emporor had a decidedly human bias. perhaps he killed of the wookies just becase they let yoda escape.

    5. Re:Wookie Survivors by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      There are even more wookies in Timothy Zahn's trilogy Dark Force Rising. The wookies are alive and well and doing the nasty on Kashyyk, so don't worry, everything's funky.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    6. Re:Wookie Survivors by Kuros_overkill · · Score: 1

      No, that was Tarfull, the leader of the Wookie Army.

    7. Re:Wookie Survivors by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      "- "Is Chewbacca the only Wookiee that survives the Clone Wars?" (with great concern)"

      Hell, that kid should just be glad Lucas didn't put little retractable rockets all over Chewie and have him fly around on a bunch of conveyer belts.

  70. I call bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you wanna point out differences, fine, that's one thing... but pretending like a "barely" 7 year old kid asked them... c'mon.

    "Is the Death Star done already?"

    They didn't speak of it by name at all in the prequels. How does he know what it is?

    "Are the republic troops clones too?" - chances are, a 7 year old doesn't know wtf a republic is. So why would he ask a question using that word?

    So yeah... I call BS. Many of these questions are formulated from either a teen or an adult. No way a 7 year old kid asked them. ...why do people do this, seriously?

  71. R4 by mkiwi · · Score: 1
    Obi-wan used an R4 droid, not the R2 droid. Anakin Skywalker uses the R2 droid when piloting a fighter.

    After watching "A New Hope" again, it was obvious that Obi-wan could have forgotten all about the R2 droid. His quote that he "[N]ever ... owned a droid before" in A New Hope is true, as Obi-wan's droid (R4) was destroyed in "Revenge of the Sith."

    As for the rest of the commentary, technilogical advancements made during the period between movies account for the "Hyperspace Ring." For example, in eposides 4-6, the Empire moves from older TIE Fighters to newer TIE Interceptors- and that clearly shows how the technology in StarWars is always advancing.

  72. Proper order? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read on some guy's site, I forget where, that he suggests the proper viewing order of all 6 movies be as follows-

    4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 6

    This way, the Vader spoiler isn't ruined, and then after everything in Empire, we can take a step back to see how everything used to be, and after that, close out everything on a high note. I, for one, agree with this order completely.

    1. Re:Proper order? by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 6.

      Hey, you know what, that's called 'thinking outside of the box', and I quite like the idea. I would've never thought of it.

      One qualm, however: how could anybody who watches the series for the first time, in that order, possibly concentrate on a pod race while Han Solo is frozen in carbonite? Or that father figure Kenobi lied to Luke (Ben, why didn't you tell me)?

      My thoughts are that your sequence is the correct one for the already initiated, because the first-time viewer will want to immediately pop number 6 into the tray.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
  73. Re:Children are little people by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

    I am glad that YOU vet what he watches and reads. Too many parents these days expect the Government to do it for them, at the expense of adults who do not have such responsibility.

    You are a credit to parents everywhere. I appreciate you controlling your child's entertainment, and not expecting MINE to be watered down for his/her protection.

    --
    "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
  74. Anakin "bringing balance to the force" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Off topic, but am I the only one who thinks that they were stupid thinking about Anakin "bringing balance to the force?" Guess what, there were only a bunch of Jedi sitting around in a circle. They thought all the Sith were gone. Therefore "balance" means that more bad guys would come along to equal out the good guys. Dumb move.

    1. Re:Anakin "bringing balance to the force" by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      Actually Lucas himself hinted at that point of view shortly after phantom menace. In a way he did bring "balance" to the force. There were 2 sith and many Jedi... he "evened" the score by leaving only 2 jedi!

    2. Re:Anakin "bringing balance to the force" by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      I can see that. Before Vader, there was a tyranny of the bureaucratic Light Side of the Force, as when the old fogies of the Establishment (Yoda, Windu) complain about the 'arrogance' of the younger generation, and assuming that the prophecy was about their own glorious perpetuation. Typical. Sounds like the right time to wipe the slate clean.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
  75. Why not train Luke and Leia right away? by h3llfish · · Score: 1

    The plot hole that really gets me (and this guy does a good job of dispelling several potential holes) is why not just train Luke and Leia in the ways of the force from day one. And why not have a more proactive approach to taking Vader and the Emperor out? Why wait until he's built his ultimate weapon, and only then try get Ben to somehow do something about it? If Luke and Leia had been properly trained, they could have tryed to assasinate the Emperor and Vader simultaneously, before the deathstar was operational, and thus behead the empire before a planet (Alderaan) ends up getting destroyed. Bloody sloppy.

    1. Re:Why not train Luke and Leia right away? by potpie · · Score: 1

      I have an idea on that. Obi-Wan was monitoring Luke on his home planet, so he would of course know when he would be ready for action. Luke is also a mythic hero, so he has a natural restlessness in him that drives him away from home with his mentor (Obi). I think Obi-Wan's wisdom, communication with Qui-Gonn, and Force-ness allowed him to understand all that.

      --
      Esoteric reference.
    2. Re:Why not train Luke and Leia right away? by It's+Impossible · · Score: 1



      " The plot hole that really gets me ... is why not just train Luke and Leia in the ways of the force from day one. And why not have a more proactive approach to taking Vader and the Emperor out?"

      Because the Jedi -- all two of them at that point -- had LOST ALL HOPE. They were incapable of being "proactive". Utterly defeated and demoralized by the Sith, they retreat to a shack on Dagobah and to the wastelands of Tatooine, and grow old and feeble with sad devotion to their ancient religion.

      That's why Luke represents [insert fanfare] A New Hope.

      It's not a hole, it's a feature! ;)

    3. Re:Why not train Luke and Leia right away? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      Also, that would give away their position by using their force powers to train and bring vader down on them in a hot minute. Attempting to train them as children is pointless if they can't apply the knowlage as adults... They litteraly waited until the empire forced their hand by killing luke's "parents". Luke had to stay hidden and live long enough to fight, the jedi part he'd have to figure out later.

    4. Re:Why not train Luke and Leia right away? by h3llfish · · Score: 1

      That's the best explaination I've heard yet, but it just doesn't seem too jedi of them to give up. They just mope around the hovel for 20 years, making rocks float around and eating that crappy gruel? Sad.

      Maybe they could see into the future enough to know that training Luke from a young age would lead to his discovery by Vader. Once they waited, Vader was busy with other things. Still, if I'm Vader, and I know that the force runs in families, I'd be tearing the galaxy apart looking for my kid, and I'd start with my own home world. I'd torture the heck out of Lars, just in case he knew something. He knew that Amidala died, but he had no reason to assume that the baby died.

    5. Re:Why not train Luke and Leia right away? by It's+Impossible · · Score: 1



      "That's the best explaination I've heard yet, but it just doesn't seem too jedi of them to give up. They just mope around the hovel for 20 years, making rocks float around and eating that crappy gruel? Sad."

      You're right: Jedi shouldn't mope. Maybe I overstated the situation. ;)

      It's my impression that this is all an endless cycle, in which the Jedi and Sith ascend and descend in power relative to one another over the course of thousands upon thousands of years. Neither ever fully wins or loses in any ultimate way.

      "Hopelessness" is probably, therefore, inflected with a certain contemplative hope for future generations -- their sense of personal failure is modulated by the knowledge that, eventually, this will sort itself out, as it always does.

    6. Re:Why not train Luke and Leia right away? by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      And are ALL the Jedi but those 2, dead? I mean Anakin was not detected until he was how old? There had to be more.

  76. Just in: slashdot.org reaches new low... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    argues with 7-yr old child :P

  77. They Aren't *In Order* by PepeGSay · · Score: 1

    A myth starts in the middle. Therefore, watching them from the most recent movies to the 70s/80s movies is not watching them "in order". The correct order is to watch the cronologically older movies first, and the most recent second.

  78. Re:Episode IV is very slow paced compared to III. by maxume · · Score: 1

    The effects got way easier to do. This is why Lucas created ILM and what not.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  79. MOD PARENT UP by grendelkhan · · Score: 1

    Genius reading.

    --
    Wu-Tang Name: Half-Cut Skeleton Get your own Wu-Na
  80. Moff Tarkin by NCTRNAL · · Score: 1

    I have a stupid question, but I have to ask it. That gangly looking clown who was standing with the Emperor and Vader right at the end of Episode III, didn't he look suspiciously like a younger version of Moff Tarkin (lurchy bone structure). If so, it is rather ironic that he was overseeing the construction of the battle station that would be his grave a short 18 years later.

    --
    "Hey Gary, why are we wearing bras on our heads?"
    1. Re:Moff Tarkin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looked more like another actor with a family photo of the young Grand Moff Tarkin actor digitally glued to his face, but yeah, the effect was nice.

    2. Re:Moff Tarkin by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      It was his battlestation. Vader said as much a couple of times.

      I haven't seen ep. VI, but I always thought the Grand Moff would have been a good character to develop further.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    3. Re:Moff Tarkin by catdriver · · Score: 1

      That's actually supposed to be Tarkin himself, played by Wayne Pygram (Scorpius) of Farscape fame. http://scifidaily.blogspot.com/2005/03/scorpius-me et-tarkin.html

    4. Re:Moff Tarkin by NCTRNAL · · Score: 1

      Like most people, I grew up on 4, 5 and 6 (born in '73), I always remembered him being the supreme old grumpy bastard. I was somewhat happy to see him back in the game, even if it was digitally enhanced.

      --
      "Hey Gary, why are we wearing bras on our heads?"
  81. now I have figured it out..... by Seahawk91 · · Score: 1

    Luke, I am your father.

    Darth Vader as a little boy, I don't know who my father is.

    Yoda smiling in the background.

    He sure does move quick as a little green dude in the earlier movies.

    How quick could he move when he was even younger?

    Darth, your father, I am.

  82. When you get as old as Vader by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    you don't move so fast anymore, damn whippersnapper Jedi :). Seriously though, there is a reason for this. Luke was comparatively untrained, and the Emperor and Vader where so powerful by then they were beyond the need for light Sabers. You'll notice the Emperor didn't even have a saber by then, and Vader didn't draw his Saber to block blaster bolts. Luke overpowered Vader in Jedi not with skill, but with hate and the power of the Dark Side.

    Ok, I'm done geeking out for the night.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:When you get as old as Vader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make some good points, I'll grant you that. But my night is made. I just got an AC post modded +5 funny...

  83. Ok... by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

    At the end of RotS, it wasnt the first death star, it was just the prototype (it made an apperance in the books, KJAs ones IIRC), so it probably only took them a couple of years to finish the full one (i'm sure someone can find a timeline somewhere), and as someone pointed out, although operational, the second one wasnt even half finished when it got asploded.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    1. Re:Ok... by VanillaBabies · · Score: 1

      So you're saying they used independent contractors?

    2. Re:Ok... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      You'd be saying they were working on the prototype at the Maw installation. They only half completed it and left it as a skeloton after they go the weapons working. I thought it was kind of cute to introduce the Death Star that early on. It's realistic to think it took 15-20 years to build. Also, the second one was well under construction when the first was destroyed.. that was in a Zahn short story.

      Darth Sidious was operating on a 100 year plan.. he planned 15 years ahead to order the clones! he was developing the tools behind the scenes to totally control everthing. It also gives more meaning to the beginning of ANH because we come into the tail end of the story when the emporor makes his empire final 20 years later by disbanding the senate.. he kept the gag going another 20 years, routing out all opposition before becomming supreme ruler.

  84. Watching them in order is a mistake.... by Asprin · · Score: 1


    I actually think watching the Star Wars movies in order -- 1,2,3,4,5,6 -- is a big mistake.

    The correct order for the best story is:
    4,
    5,
    1,2,3 - as a "flashback" to explain the origins of DV and the fall of the Jedi after Luke finds out DV is his father.
    6 - to wrap eveything up and reconcile DV and the Jedi.

    --
    "Lawyers are for sucks."
    - Doug McKenzie
  85. Proper Order by glwtta · · Score: 3, Interesting
    There's a couple of posts suggesting the proper order to watch all 6 movies.

    I personally find that the best order to watch them is:

    I, II, III.

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
    1. Re:Proper Order by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Personally, I think the best is IV V VI.

  86. Disconnects.... by slashname3 · · Score: 1

    One of the disconnects was in the original series the impression given was that the empire was extremely old. But after the latest series of movies it is obvious the empire only lasted at best about 20 years, the time it takes Luke to grow up.

    Obi Wan apparently aged a lot in those 20 years, I guess hiding from the Empire wears you down. :)

    1. Re:Disconnects.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the disconnects was in the original series the impression given was that the empire was extremely old. But after the latest series of movies it is obvious the empire only lasted at best about 20 years, the time it takes Luke to grow up.

      Not really. In Episode IV there is reference to keeping the senate going, although it seems like they are planning to eventually get rid of the senate altogether. To move from a republic to an empire without any democratic rights could not be done instantly, so it seems like the senate was being phased out slowly over 20 years or so by the Emperor.

    2. Re:Disconnects.... by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      This bugs me too. I always thought that vader shoulda been Luke's grandfather.

  87. 1982!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Born in '82?! Holy crap I feel old now.

    1. Re:1982!?! by madmancarman · · Score: 1
      Born in '82?! Holy crap I feel old now.

      If you think that's bad, just remember that there are kids in high school now who were born in the 90s.

      --
      First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
  88. In what order would you show your kids the saga? by JJC · · Score: 1

    On the train home from seeing ROTS, me and my friends were talking to a couple who were at the same screening, and one of them posed the question of what's the best order to show the Star Wars saga to your kids (or someone else who hasn't seen any of it before). The obvious choices of I-VI and IV-VI then I-III have their drawbacks so I suggest doing things a little differently.

    How about starting with ANH and TESB, but then only showing ROTJ up to the point where Luke surrenders to the Empire. Then show TPM, AOTC, the Clone Wars cartoons and ROTS. After that, show the climax of ROTJ.

    Good things about this order are that you preserve all the original trilogy revelations about the Skywalker family tree, the lightsaber battles and special effects get increasingly cooler and you get a happy ending!

    One point that I'm still debating about is whether to stop ROTJ just before, or just after Luke surrenders (around chapter 20 of the DVD IIRC). The scene where Luke and Vader are talking alone is the first time you see a "human side" of Vader, which you might want to preserve until the end. Up until that point the audience might well be thinking that Luke will kill Vader, and that scene probably seeds the first doubts.

  89. Mulligan by evilviper · · Score: 1

    You can't just go declaring shenanigans on innocent people, that's how wars get started!

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  90. Re:Children and RotS - my 7 year old's experience by dreadlocks · · Score: 1

    I don't know about other 7 year olds, but my 7 year old boy saw it with me. However we did not go in cold-turkey. I took the time with him to re-emphasize that it is a story for entertainment. We watch it and pretend it is real to enjoy watching a story unfold.

    I described the technology used in making the film, and we watched some documentaries along those lines (blue screens/ miniatures / choreography etc). He actually got a good feel for how films are made and how the actors really work (or try to) and how the computer guys create this fantasy. I wanted him to be able to immerse himself in the film to the point where he would enjoy it but still be able to step back mentally (if things got intense) and say, "yea I know this is 'acting' for my entertainment and they put a great deal of effort into making this 'look' real."

    We actually had an interesting discussion afterwards about how the computer guys removed Anakin's arms/legs and made the final fight as realistic as they could. We also talked about the choreography of the fight scenes and even about people manipulating others (Palpatine - Anakin) and how it was "skillfully done" and how people manipulate others in real life.

    In the end, based on his reaction to the film, I know he really enjoyed it (I didn't ruin it), and I think he got more out of it compared to a cold turkey viewing. I did think hard about even taking him, but again I think I prepared him well. I don't regret it.

  91. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's pretty cynical. By your logic, leadership is delegated to those least deserving in the Star Wars universe. I guess the best way to get ahead in the Rebel Alliance is by being retarded then.

  92. He's not pretending, he's old! by kiddailey · · Score: 1


    When you get to be a little older, you tend to forget things pretty easily, so it's plausible that he really forgot about R2 ;)

    Now, where are my glasses?

    Oh... uh... nevermind.

  93. The Chronicles of Narnia order. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 2, Informative

    I just found out recently that they're being marketed in chronological, rather than publication, order, and it seemed a bit like Star Wars, indeed. They're prequels, yes, but they read better out-of-order. Like "Pulp Fiction" or "Memento", the order of the story is important.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  94. Current Helmets by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

    Kevlar and Spectra helmets are meant to stop small caliber rounds actually.

  95. Yoda Was A Communist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Re:And from Empire Strikes Back (Score:5, Funny)
    by Hatta (162192) on Friday June 10, @09:39PM (#12786254)

    If your pension paid only enough to live in a slimy mud hole after living your life in top of an ivory tower, you would be senile too. The dark side of being a retired Jedi... :P

    Don't you mean:

    If slimy mudhole after living your life in the top of an ivory tower your pension paid only enough to live in, senile you would be too"


    Don't you mean: "In Soviet Russia, if slimy mudhole after living your life in the top of an ivory tower your pension paid only enough to live in, senile you would be too"
  96. a better order by DangerTenor · · Score: 1

    IMHO, the order I plan to watch them in is:

    4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 6

    This saves me almost 8 hours of my life compared to your method, and preserves enough of the surprises long enough to make them enjoyable.

    It's too bad that such bizzare ordering is the only thing that makes sense. Kudos, Lucas, you asshat.

    --
    Check out our infosecurity industry blog: http://securitymusings.com/
  97. Re:Welcome...WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shows what you know. I was not the original poster, just someone who thinks that the majority of mods on /. are a bunch of jackasses! Just when you thought that you had Anonymous Coward all figured out...

  98. Remembering Droids by Feneric · · Score: 1

    It's not surprising to me that Obi-Wan didn't remember R2-D2. He hadn't seen him for many years, and his friend's droid probably didn't figure too high in his mind during that period.

    What is more surprising to me is that Vader didn't remember C-3P0. Unlike the friend-of-a-friend relationship between Obi-Wan and R2-D2, Vader actually built C-3P0 with parts he'd snarfed as a kid.

    It's also a little surprising to me that neither R2 nor 3P0 seem to see anything significant in the name "Skywalker" or the planet Tatooine...

    1. Re:Remembering Droids by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      First there's no way Obi-Wan would have tipped his hand that early... if R2 was meeting Luke it wasn't by "accident" it was the will of the force. Obviously, R2 really DID remember the way home!!! remember when they argue which way to go.... R2 is ALWAYS right. C3PO had to be wiped...he was built by a genius kid and far more querky than the average protocol droid... way to talkative!!! R2 got off easy because he couldn't talk.. he was a top of the line royal droid custom tweeked by anakin so he's definately not a standard droid. remember the bit about he's not miswired!!

    2. Re:Remembering Droids by Harlockjds · · Score: 1

      >What is more surprising to me is that Vader didn't remember C-3P0.

      Re watch ESB and take note of Vader preventing Fett from blasting Chewie in the carbonate chamber as he attacks storm troopers. It seems like a odd thing for Vader to do un till you realize that C-3P0 is strapped on Chewies back and likely in the line of fire. THus Vader prevents his old droid from being destroyed.

      As for the droids not remembering skywalker. C-3P0 has his mind wiped (it's ordered at the end of ep 3) and R2 is smart enough to keep his mouth shut and to stay the hell away from Vader.

  99. Well, here. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 2, Informative

    Never mind, someone else said it a lot better.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:Well, here. by iocat · · Score: 1

      Great link, thanks. After reading, I'm more convinced that the original publication order is the way to go.

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    2. Re:Well, here. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Actually, IMO, the original publication order is very good for all except The Horse and His Boy, which I would still recommend reading between "The Lion the Witch & the Wardrobe" and "Prince Caspian", per the chronological ordering, instead of after "The Silver Chair", which is when it was published.

  100. Obligatory Penny Arcade Link by Sentry21 · · Score: 1
  101. Re:Unfortunately, the originals have been bastardi by flosofl · · Score: 1

    ...how to demacrovision a video signal...

    Never really thought about it, but wouldn't a signal amplifier into a video-in (say a capture card) work? I think Macrovision on VHS has to do with signal strength. Can anyone verify (or at least give a correct answer)?

    --
    "This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
  102. It's a pity the end of Empire has been spoiled. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree.

    KAHN!!!

    (3 seconds)

    KAHN!!!!!!!

    Oh wait...this ain't Star Trek.

    IMPOSSIBLE!!! NOOO!!!!!

    (3 seconds)

    NOOOOOOOO!!

  103. No. by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

    The M-16 was not meant for only CQB situations. That's why the US military uses the MP5 and its variants for that instead. The M-16 was excels at distance combat though, which explains the dual-aperture rear sights in the A2. While the AK-47 can spray a room with fire and nothing else, the M-16 can be used for accurate distance firing in addition to CQB. It's pretty useful that every soldier in a squad can engage a far attacker.

    The performance of the M-16 (or any weapon) is defines its "mission" (what ever that is supposed to mean). It's not the other way around.

  104. My Kids Are 7 and 5 by skidoo2 · · Score: 1

    My son (who's 8) saw the first three when he was barely 4. Loved them. Saw Raiders, etc. that same year. Just teach your kids the difference between movies and reality. Doy.

    I don't even know how old my daughter was (she's 5 now) when she was first exposed to Star Wars and Raiders. She's not very interested in explosions and gunplay. But she did sit with my son and I and watch RotS the weekend after it came out. She and I laughed quietly at the crap-ass parts.

    She thought Anakin looked like The Black Knight from Monty Python's Holy Grail. She pulled my ear down and whispered (as Anakin was writhing in dismembered, white-hot agony), "It's only a flesh wound!"

    1. Re:My Kids Are 7 and 5 by skidoo2 · · Score: 1

      My son and me. Shit.

    2. Re:My Kids Are 7 and 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My son and me. Shit.

      Actually, it is me and my son. /.ers should not correct grammer.

    3. Re:My Kids Are 7 and 5 by skidoo2 · · Score: 1

      "Me and my son?" Nooo. Really? Where's that rule? Is it in Strunk & White?

    4. Re:My Kids Are 7 and 5 by skidoo2 · · Score: 1

      "In the case of a compound subject, the speaker is NEVER first, but last." I'm going with this dude. Which makes you wroooooooooong!

  105. Did R2D2 get a memory sweep? by Jaxim · · Score: 1, Interesting

    How does R2D2 remember Obi-Wan was his previous owner if R2 got a memory sweep after the last prequel? Was R2D2 just saying that to convince Luke to bring them to Ben? Or did he figure out a way to back-up his memory before the mind-sweep, so he could restore his memory after the sweep? Also, how come we didn't get to see the spirit of Qui Gon Jinn? Does Darth Vader ever see the spirit of Qui Gon Jinn? Obi-wan tells Darth that if he strikes him down (in New Hope) that he'll become more powerful, which makes me come to think that Darth had seen the spirit of Qui Gon Jinn and knows Obi-Wan will become a spirit.

  106. Re:Unfortunately, the originals have been bastardi by Gulthek · · Score: 1

    There are a ton of ways to do this. I'm going to take my VHS tapes of the THX Star Wars to the local university library and use their VHS -> DVD dubber (a practice that is not so discretely encouraged).

  107. Wait... by Vthornheart · · Score: 1
    Umm... a 7 year old said that? I somehow doubt that.

    However, my Ex girlfriend never saw the original Star Wars... hell, I know probably 2 dozen people who haven't. This really isn't /. worthy... I mean, unless I live in the only area in the world where grown human beings never saw Star Wars. =)

    --
    -Vendal Thornheart
  108. > 7-Year Old Prequel Fan On ANH

    "Where's Jar-Jar?"

    "So Anakin killed his own brother and sister-in-law?"

    "How did a highly placed Wookie war hero become a rogue ne'er-do-well on the run from a Hutt?"

    "Ewwww, they kissed!"

    "How come Vader is so huge but Luke isn't very tall at all?"

    "Obviously Obi-Wan could take Anakin at his best. So why didn't he just go back and kill him?"

    "Where's the Emperor?"

    "Why can that guy talk to Vader like that and get away with it?"

    "Gosh, little beady-eyed trading nomads who'll try to sell you junk called Jews" "No, son. That's 'Jawas'".

    "Do those Sandpeople have mental problems or something?"

    And his final observation:

    "Why do they all only use one regular lightsaber?"

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  109. Why doesn't someone come up with a "best order" by drxray · · Score: 1

    That doesn't involve finishing on Ewoks?

    How about II, III, V, the second half of IV, LOTR III (minus the extra endings) and finish on Spaceballs?

    --
    Slashdot - Mutual Assured Discussion
  110. A better question by grolschie · · Score: 0

    I like pie! Do you like pie?

  111. Re:Vader in the Mall by jck2000 · · Score: 1

    Shortly after "the first Star Wars movie"* came out, during the first wave of Star Wars hysteria, the costumed character "Dark Invader" appeared at the local mall -- kids could get their pictures taken with him --, for a week or so, I guess until MPAA forces caught up with him. That has to have been one depressing job.

    * I guess I am showing my age by not calling it "ANH"

  112. that'd be me! by fearnet · · Score: 1

    You might have your 4 year olds and such who haven't seen the "first 3," but try being 24 like myself and only seeing the new ones and never 4, 5 and 6. I think I will sit down all the way through and watch them all one Saturday in the future... every friend of mine wonders how I went through all these years not watching even though I'm a huge StarTrek fan haha.

    -jiggytiggy

  113. To all "not recognizing droids" nit pickers.... by cttforsale · · Score: 1

    Don't you think Samsung's Droid division, in some crazy scheme to make a profit, made more than one C3 and R2 model droids?

  114. You're right by stockpicker_dude_78 · · Score: 1

    7 years is way too old. My 5 year old loves the movies, although each time I see it again I cringe at the corny dialog and wonder how Lucas pulled it off.

  115. Re:Unfortunately, the originals have been bastardi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IIRC, Macrovision uses a non-visible portion of the video signal to muck with something related to brightness. A VCR with an automatic gain will adjust up and down as it is fooled by this. There are filters that leave out the Macrovision pulses.

  116. Prepare for the singularity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He just *might* not need it anymore, being half-machine & all, it might have done something to his mind - like warped it further.

    Embrace the singularity!

  117. Space Opera? by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    I doubt that David Brin will be writing any Hollywood blockbusters soon. (His Uplift series, while it looks fascinating, doesn't look like it would lend itself to a ninety-minute BAM BAM KABOOM fest.

    Serenity may be more your cup of tea, perhaps not. If the Firefly series floated your boat, the movie should as well.

    His Dark Materials is being made into a series of movies. It's been described as a secular response to Narnia, but I haven't read it, so perhaps it's not what you're looking for.

    Surprisingly, I really enjoyed Pitch Black . Vin Diesel apparently forgot how to act after that, but it's a pretty interesting story. You can read the screenplay; someone was kind enough to put it online. But that's not really that space opera-y.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:Space Opera? by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      His Dark Materials is hardly Sci-Fi but does have the non-linear and moral depth that you're looking for.

      I'd worry about it being made into a film however, for the simple reason that the books upset so many religious people (and inversely delighted many anarchists); therefore the temptation of any big US movie studio will be to dilute the message of the books.

      I couldn't see which studio was making it - don't have imdb paid membership. I could see that the production company began with 'Nev' however.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    2. Re:Space Opera? by Eivind · · Score: 1
      I don't agree. Did you read "Sternenflut" (whatever that is in english, startide? )

      If anything it has an overabundance of BAM BAM KABOOM, in space aswell as in the sea.

      It'd need huge amounts of CGI though, for fins, X alien races, Y different alien ships, etc.

      But all in all, it's very adaptable to film.

    3. Re:Space Opera? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Recently, I liked the remake of Solaris. It's ambiguous, and true to the Tarkovsky "original" in leaving the deep implications unstated, though acted out for "evidence". It's a good balance of engaging (to an American) American characters and existentialism, with consequences, but without "morality" per se.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  118. Not quite, and here's why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That's close to the order I worked out, but not quite. I'd show them in this order:

    IV - where we all began
    I and II - Get to know Luke's Dad, but don't reveal that he's Darth Vader
    V - The original surprise is preserved, and magnified because we know Anakin as a character.
    III - Ok, now that you've gotten the big reveal from Empire, it's time to watch Sith and see how it all went down.
    VI - See Anakin's redemption while his fall is still fresh in your mind.

  119. I figured by Rixel · · Score: 0

    I figured that anyone seeing the movies in order would get to Episode 4 and say

    "WTF! did the whole effects industry go on strike?"

    --
    Never play chicken with a passive aggressive.
  120. oh shut up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    you know grandparent was exaggerating, there's no need to polish your moral superiority badge.

  121. Demacrovisioning. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    Good luck.

    You might also consider doing an ed2k search for "star wars new hope original", which picks up things like Star Wars Episode 4 - A New Hope (1977) Definitive Original Edition.avi, which I can't vouch for, but hey, it might just be what it says it is.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  122. Wrong....adds new depth by DesScorp · · Score: 5, Interesting
    First off, I think the series should now be watched in this order:
    1. Ep. 4, A New Hope - Introduces you to the story, concepts, and characters. The best way to start the mythos, no doubt. Lucas did good using this as a starting point.
    2. Ep. 1, The Phantom Menace - Goes back to the things Obi Wan Kenobi was talking about. You still think Luke's Father was a hero, and you see the similarities between them. The Jedi still seem wise, and the Sith evil, though it's apparent the Republic is on its last legs.
    3. Ep. 2, Attack of the Clones - Further elaborates on the history. By now, a few people should be picking up clues, especially visual clues with the Clone Trooper armor and Anakin's revenge upon the sandpeople. Mysteries are no good unless you have some chance of deducing the truth. Things begin to get dark at this point.
    4. Ep. 5, The Empire Strikes Back - To those with some deductive ability, Vader's interest in Luke is a further clue, especially "He's only a Boy. Obi Wan can no longer help him". Most newbies to the series haven't figured it out yet, though it's tugging in the back of their brains. When Vader finally tells him, probably 10 to 20 percent of the audience is going "I knew it!", but the rest are still going "Oh shit...". But after the revelation, it all makes sense. Otherwise, thee's still the possibility that Vader is simply lying to Luke. We're about to hit the low point with...
    5. Ep. 3, Revenge of the Sith - Now that we know that Vader is Luke's father, we want to know "what the hell happened to cause the change?". We now fully grasp Palpatine's deceptions, how he got an Empire, and the buttons he was helping to push to get Anakin to the Dark Side. But we also lose some sympathy for the Jedi, for by now, it's not that we realize they're inept, but that they are, in their own way, as arrogant as the Sith, but their arrogance blinds them. We get the sense that the Old Republic really wasn't worth saving, but that the coming Empire will be worse (Alderaan, anyone?). But most important...the Luke and Leia revelation is a SUPRISE this way...when it's revealed in 6, it was done in a totally cheesy way. This is a far better way to spring another "Oh crap!" on people. We also have sympathy for Anakin/Vader, as we understand he's not a monolithic evil villain; we understand his reasonings, where he went wrong, and that through it all, he was trying to do right by those he loved, and that he was being used (by both sides). But we also see just how twisted he became. The Emporer makes much more sense at this point as well...all questions about him are answered.
    6. Ep. 6 Return of the Jedi- The only remaining question at this point is now "Can Luke turn Vader back?". Also, we get more insight on the Jedi, especially the hippy-dippy "our own point of view" crap, that reveals that while why the old Jedi were more refined and powerful, Luke is a better man. He's more honest and straightforward, and is more in tune with the good side of the force, because he's not a moral relativist; and that's precisely what the old Jedi had become. They bent the rules whenever it suited them in the Clone Wars because, after all, they're the Jedi. In many ways, they had become as bad as the Sith. This is why they couldn't see the Sith coming, and it's why it's good the old Jedi Order was destroyed. Luke will rebuild it from the ground up, with a much more honest perspective. We also cheer when Vader is gone and Anakin is back; the prophecy if fulfilled. Anakin brings balance to the Force by killing the Emporer, and for the love of his son. It was a long, twisting, winding road, but it all makes sense now. The New Republic can start without the baggage of the corrupt Old Republic, and a new, BETTER Jedi can begin with Luke and Leia.

      Now on to the parent comments...

      You will never have the opportunity to relive the moment of truth at the end of Empire..

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Wrong....adds new depth by undef24 · · Score: 1

      i agree and i think i will watch them in that order.
      thank god. someone who finally says something other than this tired comment:

      4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3 -- yes, im NOT going to use roman numerals.

    2. Re:Wrong....adds new depth by Hes+Nikke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      that looks like a good way to introduce it to new viewers (perhaps my now 6 year old nephew?) however there is one thing i would add... stay away from the (official) DVD of ESB for the first time though! Paplatine talks about luke as vaders son in that version. :\

      --
      Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
    3. Re:Wrong....adds new depth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a genius. That's the way I'll watch the movies from now on.

    4. Re:Wrong....adds new depth by julesh · · Score: 1

      I personally believe 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 6 would be a better way of watching them (although I haven't seen 2 or 3 yet, so it's hard to be certain). I think anakin's name along with the foreshadowing in ep 1 is enough to spoil the major plot point of ep 5 for a signigificant proportion of viewers. And ep 5 being the best in the series, I'd say the most important thing is not to spoil it...

    5. Re:Wrong....adds new depth by julesh · · Score: 1

      An interesting question -- are there any edits available that restore the original version of the films based on a copy of the DVD (a la Phantom Edit) and possibly some downloaded material?

      If not, who's going to make them?

    6. Re:Wrong....adds new depth by ajs · · Score: 1

      I would suggest putting Star Wars: Clone Wars in there between Eps 5 and 3. It's one of the best of the series, IMHO, and does an excellent job of setting up the first 20 minutes of Ep 3 in its final five episodes.

      I also think that watching them in strict numerical order (with SW:CW just before 3) is perfectly acceptable. The series is NOT the same, then, but it has its own unique charms. The scene between Luke and Vader is all the more powerful, in my opinion, if you know that it's the truth going in, and you are watching Luke come to terms with that.

      You can also watch them in this order: 4, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 which is interesting because you "know" from 4 that Vader kills Anakin, but then you get to Ep 3 and the other shoe drops when Palpatine names him Vader! Then Ep 5 fills this out by re-introducing the Emperor and Yoda.

      Episode 5 is, in many ways, the true sequel to Episode 3.

    7. Re:Wrong....adds new depth by lurker4hire · · Score: 1

      There are DVD transfers from the original unedited laserdisc version floating around, the best you're going to get if you want to see original effects and original plot/dialogue.

    8. Re:Wrong....adds new depth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd do 456,123,456. Yep, watch the original three first, then wath the whole thing in sequence.

    9. Re:Wrong....adds new depth by Kelson · · Score: 1

      Actually, IIRC he refers to him as "the son of Anakin Skywalker."

      If you don't know Vader is Anakin, all it does is tell you Luke's father's name.

    10. Re:Wrong....adds new depth by JaxGator75 · · Score: 1

      I have those and they are definitely worth it for "Old Time's Sake". It's even kinda fun to watch the translucent squares around the Tie Fighters...

      --
      Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
  123. Plot mistakes, nope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, regarding R2D2; R2 units are common place, just watch the movies, R2 was never owned by Obi-Wan, it was used by Anakin. Also, in episode one, when the Queens ship has taken damage the droids are sent up the "chute" to fix the problem. R2 is the last droid out. If you pay close attention another blue, white and silver R2 unit exits the ship before our R2D2. R2's are common and Obi-wan never owned this R2D2. Also, some have discussed R2 is faking knowing Obi-Wan, let's see, I don't know about you but I heard R2 say Beep-Boop-Tick-Boop-Squeel-Beep, which plainly translates to "Obi-Wan, where have you been all these years, My you've gotten grey, How's the green guy and why don't you recognize me."

    Next, C3PO; In episode 2, 3PO is "owned" by Owen Lars (AKA Uncle Owen) at this time 3PO is a dull silver grey rusty brownish sort of color. In episode 3, 3PO has been Gold coated and at the end of the movie his memory is wiped. In episode 4, 3PO is mostly Gold, but one leg is back to the more dull silver grey rusty brownish sort of color. The now Uncle Owen doesn't recognize his former, now re-colored, protocol droid, Hummm, has uncle Owen lost his marbles, NOPE. Paint my common washing machine and in 20 years it won't recognize me, nor will I recognize it.

    And last "Why don't those ships have Hyperspace rings", oh let me think; Isn't that like asking why doesn't your computer have a 5.25" floppy drive?" Only a kid would ask such an obvious question...

  124. MOD Parent Up by Cappy+Red · · Score: 1

    A hearty "hear hear" from me, KFG.

    --
    This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
  125. A lot of people seem to forget that... by cyberfelon2k5 · · Score: 1
    ...all these arguments over which order to watch the films in only applies to the first viewing. Once you've seen all the films and know all the story, watching the films 4-6 then 1-3 seems pointless.

    However, first viewing order is something that could be debated over and over, and it's always going to be settled differently according to the opinions of the individual or parents involved. My personal opinion is that while Darth Vader being Luke's father was certainly a surprise, I would much rather be surprised with everything that happens in Revenge of the Sith. We take for granted the fact that we knew what had to happen in the film, but if you had no idea what was about to happen I think you'd find your surprise at Episode III would be greater than the one line in Empire.

    Another issue that you bring up is the way in which 1-3 "rely on previous knowledge". What happened to the people saying that part of the fun of Star Wars was that you were thrown head first into a universe that didn't explain itself? If you take the same attitude while watching A New Hope for the first time, you're going to spend the first chunk of the movie trying to figure out why you should care about the two robots and of what importance they are to the story. It is only through their actions over the course of the films that you realise their importance, and I think you find the exact same thing in the prequel trilogy. I also believe that while the force is not explained in the prequels like it was in the originals, it is still made clear that the jedi use the force to do all their cool tricks, and that's all you need to know. I find this works well, while still retaining the importance of Obi-wan's explanation of the force in Episode IV.

    By the way, I'm a 19 year old who grew up with Star Wars. I've loved Star Wars since I was about 7, but when Episode I came out I was 13. I didn't go into that cinema as an adult, I went in as a 13 year old looking for a kickass movie. I found one. My movie tastes have matured and evolved a lot over the past 6 years, but there is still a place in my heart for the prequel films. They're certainly not the best movies ever made, but that doesn't stop them from entertaining the shit out of me.

    1. Re:A lot of people seem to forget that... by rizzo5 · · Score: 1

      They're certainly not the best movies ever made, but that doesn't stop them from entertaining the shit out of me.
      Well, I guess that's one alternative to dietary fiber...
  126. Correct viewing order of episodes by Shimmer · · Score: 1

    The correct viewing order is: 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 6

    No other order makes as much sense.

    --
    The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
    1. Re:Correct viewing order of episodes by rizzo5 · · Score: 1

      THat's an interesting take, I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning behind it. Kind of brings to mind the whole debate over the order of the episodes of The Prisoner.

    2. Re:Correct viewing order of episodes by Shimmer · · Score: 1

      To give credit where it's due, the original suggestion comes from another Slashdot post (too lazy to look it up now).

      For the drama to work, you have to see 4 & 5 before you see 1-3. In 4, you have to find Ben mysterious. You have to think that Luke is just an average farmboy. In 5, you have to be surprised that the little green guy is the Jedi master. And most of all, you have to be surprised that Luke and Vader are related.

      So 4 & 5 set up the drama. Then 1-3 give the backstory, which heightens the climax in 6 when Anakin/Vader chooses to (literally) overthrow the emperor for the love of his son.

      --
      The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
  127. Re:Unfortunately, the originals have been bastardi by slaker · · Score: 1

    Well, the cheapest way to do it is to run your new-ish VCR into something that has the right in- and outputs, yet doesn't grok macrovision. I use an old beta unit for that purpose.

    However, it's really worth tracking down rips from the laserdisc set if you'd like the best possible quality. Non-degrading picture + more common Svideo outputs (yes, some (S)VHS players have 'em, but you'd really have to go out of your way to own one of them) both contribute a lot to having something that doesn't awful to anyone used to 36"+ TVs and DVD picture quality.

    4.7GB ISOs of the laserdisc versions are on Torrent sites everywhere.

    --
    -- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
  128. Ben's "certain POV" by KMitchell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While watching ROTS, as Obi-Wan picks up Anakin's lighsaber--leaving him to burn to death--all I could think of was the ANH quote "your father wanted you to have it when you were old enough" and damn was that that a stretch. Makes the "betrayed and murdered your father" seem pretty reasonble by comparison...

    1. Re:Ben's "certain POV" by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      Waaaaait a minute... Ben never really tried to bring Annakin back to the light side - instead he fought with him... Doesn't that make Ben as much responsible for Vader being Vader as himself?

  129. Faust by Cappy+Red · · Score: 1

    Vader's redemption follows the Faust principle: one decision for good at the end of a life is enough to make up for a life ill-spent.

    So far as Luke's reaction: consider that Luke has no family, and has never known either of his parents(Beru and Lars had him call them aunt and uncle, implying a void in the mother and father slots). Consider also that since Anakin is Luke's father, and he went so far to the dark side, Luke might want to redeem him for a similar reason to Frodo's wish to redeem Gollum -- to show that there's hope for himself.(If Luke was born of a man of pure evil, then what's keeping Luke from inheriting it? It may not make for good genetics, but it is something people in the situation would tend to think about)

    --
    This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
  130. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  131. i watched them in numeric order by hammeredpeon · · Score: 1
    And I think that the best episode is either ROTS or ROTJ. I lean towards ep3 because it had so much conflict and story.

    I think I like episodes 4 and 5 less than 3 because I don't have any of the nostalgia with the movies.

    --
    best college pickem site ever: pickem.terrbear.org
  132. In Soviet Russia by okto · · Score: 0

    PREQUEL REA--god, I don't have the heart to do it.

  133. 5.56 vs 7.62 by Create+an+Account · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Having shot both weapons I can say that there definitely is a difference between them... in the hands of a properly trained marksman. There is a reason the US trains their infantry so hard. Those guys can shoot. They make good use of the superior accuracy of they M-16/M-4.

    Also, the M-16 has a much lighter kick, allowing for faster accurate followup shots than you can get with the AK. Even using three-round-bursts there is less deflection/vibration.

    Another major advantage of the smaller lighter round is that the troops can carry far more 5.56 ammunition. The loudest sound in a gun fight is *click*, and he who runs out of ammunition first loses. Sure, you get a bunch of jerks out there with only 15 or 20 rounds in their AKs, but these are not long-lived individuals, generally. The word 'cannonfodder' comes to mind.

    And, yes, our third-world adversaries do consider it a victory when one of their illiterate enthusiasts manages to shoot on of our boys/girls (or blows him/her up, more likely), but this has nothing to do with the quality of the American rifle.

    I know there was debate about the decreased kill probability when using the smaller round. I think the final outcome was that a wounded enemy was often better than a dead one, and I think this speaks well of Americans generally.

    Oops, I just realized that this isn't a gun thread. Sorry. Back to Star Wars.

    1. Re:5.56 vs 7.62 by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I know there was debate about the decreased kill probability when using the smaller round. I think the final outcome was that a wounded enemy was often better than a dead one, and I think this speaks well of Americans generally.

      Yeah, I've heard that logic too. It didn't work in Vietnam: they'd just leave their wounded. Not all cultures care about their wounded the way westerners do.

    2. Re:5.56 vs 7.62 by XO · · Score: 1

      "The loudest sound in a gun fight is *click*" .. I have GOT to remember that.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
  134. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  135. One word: Ewoks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...personally I'll just continue to enjoy those 3 great original movies...
    Has it occurred to anyone else that maybe the worthless trio of prequels were simply an elaborate attempt to restore credibility to "Return of the Jedi"?
  136. Re:Unfortunately, the originals have been bastardi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are rips of the pre-SE laserdisc edition, which are theatrical versions (Han shooting first, no 'ring' around the death star explosion, etc)

  137. How many prequels *would* actually work in order? by michaeldot · · Score: 1

    I'm thinking of the Dune series... If one started reading them books in chronological order (the 3x "Butlerian Jihad" books + the 3x "House" books), I doubt very much anyone would ever get to "Dune" as they would have given up in sheer boredom. Those prequels only made sense in the context of explaining the events of the original books (and bad explanations at that, imho). That's going to be true of most prequels, isn't it? Well, I'm just thankful that JK Rowling has said that she'd never write a "Happy Potter Episode 1."

  138. What's the deal with Qui-Gon, then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (no text)

  139. Millions of protocol and astromech droids: by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yet the designations of the two that we see are C3PO and R2-D2. Never do we find out if C3PO is a model number or a serial number, but the latter seems to be implied. As for R2, It is clearly implied that it is an R2-unit. Meaning model number R2, serial number D2. Even granting that there could be more letters in the galactic alphabet, The population of the republic is so large that our named numbers probably don't do it justice. Those droids have very low numbers indeed. What are the odds that two 'low-number' droids would end up in the hands of a moisture farmer on tatooine? I still remember that time I was driving behind the car with registration number: 7. Those droids are billions of times more rare than that.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    1. Re:Millions of protocol and astromech droids: by ezeri · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But just think of how many Jim, Jack, Jane and Jills there are today. The droids in Star Wars are treated more like living beings than anything else, so it would make sence that they would have names that were easy to use, rather than longer serial numbers. After all, a moisture farmer on tatooine isn't going to care if there are millions of R2-D2 droids in the gallaxy, just so long as his droid knows to respond when it hears it.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now. - Ed Howd
    2. Re:Millions of protocol and astromech droids: by julesh · · Score: 1

      The droids' numbers are almost certainly not unique, it's the only way of explaining how come it would even be possible for 2 such low numbered droids to encounter each other in the first place. Probably these are designations given to them on commissioning, and are only supposed to be unique for the environment they were designed for working in.

    3. Re:Millions of protocol and astromech droids: by Abreu · · Score: 1

      Well, about the short names, remember that in some societies that supported slavery, slaves were not entitled to a "full" or "real" name, but they had to live being just another "tom" or "nan" or "jim"

      The fact that the droids are the "negroes" of the Star Wars universe is quite evident. They are bought and sold by slaving raiders, people go around them without aknowledging their presence... and a long list of etc.

      In such a society, where "every negro is just like the others", it makes perfect sense that Owen or even Obiwan would not recognize droids from 15 years past.

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    4. Re:Millions of protocol and astromech droids: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple. R2 was a class of droid and D2 was the subtype. Notice how the one with the "bad motivator was a an R5 class droid and was designed differently.

      C-3P0 was a Communication droid and was probably manufactured by some forerunner to IBM given the format of the subtype.

      #-$

    5. Re:Millions of protocol and astromech droids: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps instead of a serial number, its a model number. Clearly there are lots of variations of the R2 units, and I don't refer to my car by its VIN but by its model. In which case there's thousands/millions of R2-D2's, but Luke only owns 1. He might recognize it by paint, by the pitch of the squeaks (like ring tones for droids), whatever. WWII pilot used to know the subtle differences between their plane and their buddies, but If you own dozens of R2-D2's, do you really care which one does what if they are all identical?

  140. What could have been! by nova_ostrich · · Score: 1

    Would eny(sic) of you done differently?

    I expected to see this scene progress quite differently as I was watching it. Everything was going great... Vader started ripping everything apart with the Force, but then we get to this corny melodramatic "NNOOOOO!!!!" A much more moving scene that wouldn't have torn me away from my suspension of disbelief would have had Vader continuing to destroy the room, finally resorting to physically ripping things apart as well until he became so exhausted that he would just collapse and give up. If I could have seen that I would have stood up and cheered.

    --
    It's scary being a Flash and Flex developer on Slashdot. You guys are unnaturally rabid.
  141. 'new school fan' by SQLz · · Score: 1

    Recently I went to dinner with some of my wife's fiends from college and one guy was supposedly a big fan of star wars, like myself. It was strange though, I consider him the anti-fan. He hates the original movies, likes the new versions of 4,5, and 6 alright. He loved episode 1 and 2, hated episode 3.

    He told me because I like the oringal works and not the works Lucus wanted to make 'orginally',I'm not a true fan.

    I don't know, I don't get it. I think the original versions were great and I didn't like the cheap looking add-ons put it. I thought Episode 1 was boring, Episode 2 was mediocre at best, and 3 was the best prequal.

    1. Re:'new school fan' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is odd. Its interesting to me that people like that walk among us. I mean, he did grow up with the same movies; how could someone acquire such an opposite impression of the same thing??

  142. right on by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

    I think you hit right on it. You have to teach kids to see both the mechanics and the emotion behind things. We really have to learn to let kids relish the good things too.. in general we're really bad about keeping boys from "girlie" things. teach kids to feel the range of emotions and not just the fighting, anger, hating ones...

  143. Why the death star ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think about it - the Jedi by that stage were basically gone - a spent force (if you pardon the bad pun).

    'Vader' had decapitated the Trade Alliance.

    The Emperor had the entire clone army at his command.

    What point the Death Star ?

  144. Edited Episode 6 - New Ending by digid · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Anyone seen the new ending of Episode 6? They replaced the old Anakin (played by Shaw) with Hayden Christensen when Luke sees Yoda, Obi Wan and Anakin appear to him. As well, they added a short aerial tour of animated celebrations throughout various parts of the galaxy.

    1. Re:Edited Episode 6 - New Ending by (el)Capitan.Nick · · Score: 2, Funny

      It fills me with a fury that can only be compared to that of a fairly angry person.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right." -Isaac Asimov
    2. Re:Edited Episode 6 - New Ending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      With the exception of Naboo, the celebrations were I believe already in the 1997 Special Edition.

  145. Pedantry by ShamanDave · · Score: 1

    An example of this is in episode 3 when they talk about the short range TIE fighter.

    I assume you mean Episode 4.

    Good points, otherwise.

  146. OBiwan and R2 by LooseChanj · · Score: 1

    I'd say it's a perfectly logical conclusion that Obiwan didn't recognize R2D2 as the droid Padme and Anakin owned.

    --
    Mix the failings of Usenet with the shortcomings of the World Wide Web and the result is slashdot.
  147. It's Only A Flesh Wound by Ranger · · Score: 4, Funny

    After watching the final fight scene in Episode III between Obi Wan and Anakin, was anyone else reminded of King Arthur's fight with the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail? Oh, well. Sith happens.

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
    1. Re:It's Only A Flesh Wound by jcuervo · · Score: 1

      I kept expecting the newly-mechnically-born Darth Vader to rip off his helmet and say "this helmet is chafing my eyebrows! I swear!".

      --
      Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
    2. Re:It's Only A Flesh Wound by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      If we're going to start with the Python references, well then, so be it.

      The correct order in which to watch the Star Wars series is 4, 5, 6...NO, ONE!

      And what else, other than a duck, floats in water? A Jedi!!!

      On second thought, let's not go to Coruscant, it is a silly place.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    3. Re:It's Only A Flesh Wound by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      Sound like something Dark Helmet may have said in the movie Spaceballs, but I haven't seen it in such a long time I can't remember. But I do remember this:

      I see your schwartz is as big as mine.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    4. Re:It's Only A Flesh Wound by Brandan · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't it be 1, 2, 5!

      Ah, 3 sir.

  148. dudes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Star Wars - its not real!

  149. Re:To all "not recognizing droids" nit pickers.... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

    NO, Obi-Wan would have know instantly.. both droids spend extensive time with anakin.. his "force" would have been all over them... also they were carrying a message from Luke's sister.. so their was then no doubt.. but of course Obi-Wan can't explain everything to luke right now... I'd love to see a story about that week on tatooine from Obi-Wan's point of view as the force brings all the pieces together.

  150. PG13 by not-enough-info · · Score: 1

    After hearing so much about parents taking their kids to see R and PG13 movies (god you should've seen the kids StarshipTroopers...) I can't help but wonder if "Parental Guidance" is misinterpreted as "parents should guide their kids". IMU, it means "this is guidance for you parents." Why the hell don't people care? Is it just the arrogance that they know what's best, or that they think that their kids are "mature" (in which case people need to get a fsking grip and stop kidding themeselves.)?

    --
    ---k--
    </stupid>
    1. Re:PG13 by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Because ratings are so fscked up that the only difference between them is that you need ID to get into anything over MA15?

  151. Star Wars is like Monna Lisa by VincenzoRomano · · Score: 1

    My opinion is that Star Wars is like Monna Lisa.
    First of all is should have a place in one big museum of arts. No questions it deserves this.
    Second everyone (like Mr. D. Brown) is asking a lot of questions about strange things in the painting. Nonetheless it is a fashinating grat piece of arts challenging the ages. And so (IMHO) will SW.
    Finally, if you study any movie (prequels and sequels especially), you'll find a lot of "strange things" in there. None can perfect! Maybe none would like to be.

    --
    Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
    For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
  152. Au contraire. Despotism lacks efficiency. by rolofft · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If your contention were correct, Idi Amin would have lead Uganda to world domination while Margaret Thatcher tumbled the UK. Weren't the lessons of the 20th century to the contrary? Is it efficient for the Poliburo to have party members honeycombed through the whole economy, reporting every time someone neglects their duty? Would you take the Commissariat for Food over Wendy's? And doesn't hindsight (The Gipper v. Gorby) show whom to choose in a battle for military might? The Cathedral may work adequately for a campus in Redmond, but The Bazaar is the only realistic model to run a whole nation by.

    --

    "Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries!"

    1. Re:Au contraire. Despotism lacks efficiency. by vertinox · · Score: 1

      You do have a point.

      Perhaps it would be better to say "Fascism, National Socialism, and Stalinism have better efficiency than a peace time democracy of a Western power."

      Because obvsiously you can have a dictatorship and still have a crappy system if you let your half brother run the Ministry of Economics while you sit around in your swimming pool with a harem of women. Not that it wouldn't be bad for you...

      Two things said... War Time democracy can be very efficient, albeit it's not much of a democracy other than in name since most rights are revoked during times of crisis.

      And at the time and Stalinism is only form of efficent Communism because it involes shooting a lot of people when they didn't work hard enough. Communism after Kruschev was rather poorly thought out and didn't work very well and couldn't do anything much except repress a few eastern European nations and get all flustered in Afghanistan.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    2. Re:Au contraire. Despotism lacks efficiency. by rolofft · · Score: 1

      If I get your gist, you're saying that post-glasnost/perestroika communism is less efficient than the hard-core Stalinist/Maoist form. My point is that if the 20th century taught us anything it's that freedom trumps "shooting a lot of people when they didn't work hard enough". The Emperor looks impressive in his robes and huge chair on the deck of the Death Star, but he's ultimately a buffoon of Fidel Castro's stripe.

      --

      "Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries!"

    3. Re:Au contraire. Despotism lacks efficiency. by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1
      If your contention were correct, Idi Amin would have lead Uganda to world domination while Margaret Thatcher tumbled the UK.

      No. That only follows if you make other assumptions she didn't mention. In particular, you are acting as if a dictatorship is incompatible with capitalism, when in fact dictatorial capitalism was the style that drove the rapid 1930s growth of Italy, Germany, and Japan.

      And doesn't hindsight (The Gipper v. Gorby) show whom to choose in a battle for military might?

      No, it doesn't. For comparison, if I beat-up Muhammed Ali, it won't prove that karate is better than boxing... only that he's old and senile.

      Going back to the Communist Revolution of 1917, Russia was already at a major disadvantage. Even if they'd had a democratic/capitalist revolution instead, they still couldn't have equalled the USA's military in 1989.

      Look at everything that was stacked against them:
      • poor natural resources
      • worse climate
      • 60% lower population
      • aggressive expansionist neighbors (with overland routes!)
      • non-immigrant population (meaning not self-selected for initiative)
    4. Re:Au contraire. Despotism lacks efficiency. by rolofft · · Score: 1

      You're right that a clash between two nations amounts to just anecdotal evidence. Starting with a level playing field, do you think an autocracy stands a chance against a free society?

      Why is tiny Hong Kong an economic powerhouse (even with no natural resources, land, etc...), while Cuba can barely feed itself? Why does South Korea flourish while the North is impoverished? How did the Rebel Alliance beat the Empire?

      My opinion is that totalitarianism is too prone to be constrained by (to adapt a quote by Vaclav Havel)"mental short circuits". Instead of spinning its wheels managing gulags and cracking down on "kulaks", a free society self-manages its ultimate resource: its people.

      The Rebel Alliance had more stacked against it than the Soviets. The Rebels won because they tapped the talents of each member, while the Empire's plans were constrained to the vision of the Emperor and his toady.

      --

      "Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries!"

  153. Re:Children are little people by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


    I'm not overly concerned with children seeing violence or sex. I'm concerned with the dubious morality that goes with it.

    In the Star Wars prequels (haven't seen the Ep.III), we see Jedi controlling people's minds to rob them (sell me the components I need), and murdering countless people. And this is shown as acceptable by virtue of them being the Good Guys (aka "our side").

    There are many more subtle examples, but this is the concern, not that there is violence, but that it is the way to solve disputes. The hero is the hero because he is stronger than the bad guy. Wrong message.

    --

    Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
  154. nice to have a fresh perspective by adrianmonk · · Score: 1

    I agree... It is nice to have a fresh perspective on Episode IV.

  155. Incetious plot holes by blekkazzen · · Score: 1

    I'm wondering if a parent should be happy that their kid didn't point out that Leia kissed her brother or worried that they did notice it and didn't see anything wrong about it.

  156. Re:Different! by SPY_jmr1 · · Score: 1

    Han Solo is a fictional charactor, whereas Ewan McGregor is a (somewhat|moderatly|very) talanted actor.

  157. I'm sorry.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .....but you guys are ALL oversimplifying

  158. Star Wars Exegesis by apralarpa · · Score: 1

    What you people don't realise is that the key to understanding the entire Star Wars "Cosm" is not by geekish (and quite frankly idiotic) invocation of statistically idiotic phrases, neologisms and haphazard gratuitious use of irrelevant terminology, but by simple apprehension of Lucas's insane zen consciousness

    thus: Each episode considered alone is in fact a momentary reality whose self-editing narrative creates an implied past, the retrocausality of the present not presenting a unique history but a most probable one of which the antecedent Lucasian installment is not. Subsequent installments are equally manifold. The only consistancy required is to invariant facts(technomythic archetypes) of our own choosing(like IG-88)

    am i making any sense yet? like the parent said:"your prefered movie-installment defines your reality"

    All Palindromic Recursive Acronyms Like APRALARPA Require Pronounceable Abbreviations

  159. It's obvious. by istewart · · Score: 1

    What do you THINK that big red lightsaber's supposed to be?

  160. Except... by DesScorp · · Score: 1

    ...that Anakin is shown at the end of Jedi with Obi Wan and Yoda in the great afterlife of the light side of the force....he couldn't have gotten there without turning back to the good side. Nice theory, but sorry, back to the drawing board...

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  161. Were you by any chance using Konqueror? by DesScorp · · Score: 1
    It's been 6 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment


    I had the same problem with Konq yesterday, but when I moved to a machine with Mozilla, I didn't have the problem. It's an annoying bug, whatever it is...
    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  162. Dictatorship is ineffic ient by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1

    Basically, a dictorship is uncompatible with a free press, leaving space for ever growing corruption.

    That is why the Soviet Union collapsed, while the US (despite its obviously dysfunctional political system) prevailed.

    Checks and balances are needed.

  163. Ummmm... by DesScorp · · Score: 1

    ...I saw it when it first came out in 1977, several times actually, and I distinctly remember seeing the "Episode IV" at the beginning of the space scroll and thinking "what the....episode LV???" (Hey, I was Eight at the time...gimme a break).

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Ummmm... by julesh · · Score: 1

      ...I saw it when it first came out in 1977, several times actually, and I distinctly remember seeing the "Episode IV" at the beginning of the space scroll and thinking "what the....episode LV???" (Hey, I was Eight at the time...gimme a break).

      I didn't see it until much later (some time around 81, I think), but I've heard this from several sources, who all claim to have seen it with their own eyes -- the original release did *not* have "Episode IV" or "A New Hope" in it.

    2. Re:Ummmm... by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Yes, it had those words. But not until the second run. He re-edited the movie for foreign release a few months after the US release, and edited the US version at the same time.

      I remember the "Episode IV" the *second* time I saw the movie, and thinking, "I don't remember that!"

      Did the version you saw have a scene with Luke and Biggs talking on Tatooine? Biggs is leaving to join the rebellion and Luke wishes he could go with him? If you didn't, you didn't see the first run. That was one of Lucas's first post-release revisions. It might have been in the second run, but it wasn't in the later releases.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    3. Re:Ummmm... by DesScorp · · Score: 1
      Did the version you saw have a scene with Luke and Biggs talking on Tatooine?


      No, and I always wondered about it. I've seen stills of the scene...
      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  164. Re:Children are little people by XO · · Score: 1

    Of course you do. Virtually everyone who is in this conversation still lives with their parents. I don't. But I haven't seen Ep 1-3, either. And I saw Ep 5 and 6 in the theaters when they came out, and haven't watched them since.

    --
    "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
  165. Any Asimov fans in the audience? by ggvaidya · · Score: 2, Funny

    R2D2 = R. Daneel Olivow?

    Okay, *THAT* I did not see coming ...

    1. Re:Any Asimov fans in the audience? by tomlouie · · Score: 1

      Damn you! :) Wasn't it bad enough that Asimov linked the Foundation series and the Elijah Bailey series AND the Foundation prequel(s) together through that damn robot?

      Next, you're going to tell me that Twiki was R. Giskard rebuilt...

      Tom

    2. Re:Any Asimov fans in the audience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes...first a post of one guy's convulted theory of underlying metaphors in Star Wars, interesting mainly for its complete mispelling of the focal point of the theory - the planet Coruscant. Then a reply noting another strange theory, mispelling that also. Big fans we've got here!

  166. My 0.02 by malikvlc · · Score: 1

    Another inconsistency that bothers me:

    In EpI we learn that young Anakin was a tinkerer of immense skill. Take a look at that pod racer, for one. And watch the actual Boonta Eve race closely - two sets of circumstances prevent him from leading that race from jump: he stalls at the beginning and that crazy scene where one of the tether cables breaks loose. Despite this, his speeder is agile and fast enough to overtake all the other contesants and eventually win. The kid must have been an engineering genius.

    BUT there's C3PO. WHY would he build a protocol droid that LOOKED LIKE EVERY OTHER PROTOCOL DROID?!? And then make it so damn prissy?

    Ok, I can accept his not designing the AI for the droid, but (IMO) C3PO's frame would have been totally unique to accomodate the harsh living conditions of Tattooine.

    Finally, it would seem that Obi-Wan is not the only one playing the "I don't remember this droid" game. In EpV, C3PO is in a box, yes, but Darth NEVER recognizes him during the carbonite freeze scene. Oops?

    Yes, I too have lost sleep over the prequels...

    --
    Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try. ~Yoda
  167. Friendly Fire by MrWim · · Score: 1

    It's like being a British soldier in Iraq

  168. Ha Ha by hummassa · · Score: 1

    Not many dates liked to watch Tarzan or Mulan or similars... :-) The girls just asked for "You got m@il" or "Sleepless in Seattle" or some other Meg Ryan flick.

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
    1. Re:Ha Ha by Oniko · · Score: 1

      Heh.... see, the funny thing is, I'd be ten thousand times more interested in SW or something else with explosions, spaceships, gunfights, car chases, and/or other nifty things than "hitch", "love actually", or any of the other romantic comedies my *boy*friend's dragged me to.

      I'm a comp sci engineer, and he's an english major, which explains this reversal. But this is somewhat redeemed by the fact that he's one of only a handful of guys to pick up a girlfriend at a d&d campaign. :-)

  169. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess the best way to get ahead in the Rebel Alliance is by being retarded then.

    Why not? Seems to work for America...

    *ducks*

  170. Time will come by Udo+Schmitz · · Score: 1
    "Why are red leader and gold leader the leaders? They don't know what they're doing..."

    The time will come when he finishes school and gets a boss for the first time, he will see more clearly.

  171. Colors and light in SW by Zathras26 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This applies to the prequels as well, but much more so to the original trilogy. Often, in light of all the action and special effects and so on, people overlook some of the more subtle symbolism that's present in Star Wars. One of the big areas that does this for me is the way light and color are used. Some examples:

    In ANH, Obi-Wan is telling Luke about "the old days". At one point, he says, "Oh, yes... I was once a Jedi, like your father." He then leans back, revealing a brightly lit window -- very symbolic.

    Han Solo's garb. His shirt is white, the vest he wears over it is black, just like his personality: on the outside, he appears to be a real creep, but on the inside, he does have noble qualities.

    Colors in general: Darth Vader and the Imperial officers all wear either black or muted shades of gray; Leia and the rebels wear white or lighter colors. (Although Lucas did mess this up by dressing the storm troopers in white.)

    One of my favorites: throughout ROTJ, Luke, formerly dressed all in white, is now dressed entirely in black, symbolic of his upcoming temptation to turn to the dark side. He stays dressed entirely in black, until he fully and openly refuses to turn to the dark side. Shortly after he does this and the emperor starts frying him, a small light-gray panel opens on the front of his tunic, symbolizing his choice to stay with the good side. This panel stays open for the remainder of the film.

    Good filmmaking elements that are very subtle and often overlooked, as I said, in all of the "sound and fury".

  172. all stories should start at the beginning by oogoody · · Score: 1

    And the beginning of the story, not the back story, is III.

  173. Wendy's vs. the Commissariat by alienmole · · Score: 1
    Would you take the Commissariat for Food over Wendy's?

    That's a tough choice, really. Left to myself, I would never set foot in another Wendy's, McDonalds, Burger King etc. I occasionally get dragged there by friends, and I always wonder to myself what went wrong to cause mass-market food to suck so badly.

    Yes, I know that many people seem to acquire a taste for it in childhood, and then are unable to kick the addiction to the endorphin rush that follows from a big hit of fat, sugar and salt, but a societally-sanctioned drug addiction which leads to obesity hardly seems like the sort of thing which makes democracy great.

    Perhaps the idea is to be able to squash enemies merely by sitting on them...

  174. Huh? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1
    - "Look... Obi-Wan is pretending he doesn't know R2-D2." (see Hole/No-hole: Why doesn't Obi-Wan remember R2? )

    Uh, because there's probably, like, 57 trillion droids in the galaxy, 2 billion of which look like the R2 model?

    - "How can the Emperor dissolve the Senate? Didn't he destroy it trying to kill Yoda?"

    Well, he busted up the joint a bit.

    "Why don't those ships need Hyperspace rings?"

    Advancements in technology spun off from Project Death Star.

    - "So, does this mean that R2-D2 is really the main character in Star Wars?"

    Actually, R2D2 is the Machiavellian master behind the whole mess, ppulling the strings on Sith and Jedi alike.

    So what's the big revelation here? There's a disconnect between the prequels and originals? Wow. That's for that scoop, there, Kolchak.

  175. Freedom to Choose Poorly by Stu+Charlton · · Score: 1

    This is one of the classic arguments against democratic selection of rulers: you're free to pick inept ones.

    In an authoritarian order, it's more important to have leaders with superior skills & knowledge (i.e. knowledge is closed to a select elite).

    In a modern democratic order, it's assumed that everyone pretty much is equally open to fault, and that no one truly has superior knowledge (i.e. knowledge is open to all and transitory).

    The Star Wars model seemed to be a unique take on the checks & balances of most political systems -- i.e. the democratic legislative branch (republican senate) vs. the authoritarian judiciary (Jedi). The story highlights the problems that occur in political crisis ... when one branch attempts to gain power over the other -- or more generally, the popular preference for the security of authoritarian leadership as an escape from the responsibilities and dangers of freedom.

    --
    -Stu
  176. R2 is the clue by DenDave · · Score: 1

    And as if Lucas was leaching asimov... The robot is the clue and the true adversary of palpatine. R2 knows all and is always the one to initiate the important plot moves. R2 is obviously far far smarter than most of the biological lifeforms, not to mention any other artificial lifeform encountered in the whole series.

    I suggest that the whole dang plot revolves around the little bugger. I further suggest that R2 serves as the full backup of Jedi Council knowledge and that is why he knows everything... The force flows strongly in this one...

    --
    -if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
  177. Nope, didn't read it. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    I think it's "Startide Rising" in English.

    It's been on my reading list, but I've only gotten the plot synopsis from a friend thus far, so I suppose I was speaking without any authority there. Which you'd think I'd know better than to do.

    I despair of even a 250 page short novel being made well into a film. Everything has to be cut out; movies tell us the feeling, not the story. It's a much vaguer medium in some ways. I'm thinking of "Starship Troopers" here.

    I suppose the problem is that I can't think of a movie that had the requisite KABAM BOOM and still made an interestingly twisty plot.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:Nope, didn't read it. by Eivind · · Score: 1
      I quite liked Startide Rising. (assuming that's the correct english name :-)) It's not terribly realistic, but then neither is his other books. It is, however, a good fun romp.

      It's got lots of underwater-sledge, some dolphin-with-harness (the dolphins have a "neural interface" (how original) that lets them control machinery, the "harness" is basically neurably-controlled arms and some human fighting. There's also a hunking large space-battle going on above the planet they're hiding on. Hunking large as in thousands of ships from a dozen races, going on over weeks.

      Sounds like hollywood to me.

      I agree that in most cases the book are superior to the film, or even when not it brings other aspects over well than the film.

  178. Quick - what was your parents toaster 20 years ago by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    How many of you out there can name the exact make and model of the toaster you had growing up, or perhaps your stove?

    Because for one thing, R2-D2 was not even Obi-Wans, and for another he was not much more than an appliance to Obi-Wan (who never showed much love of mechanical things anyway and thus would have no attachment to help remember).

    I really don't get why Obi-Wan should have any particular memory of someone else's droid from 20 years ago, or why Ownen Lars would remember the exact designation for some runaway protocol droid his father had twenty-two years back either. R2 of course knows Obi-Wan but that's why he sets out directly to seek him at every opportunity. He knows what he's looking for.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  179. Why would he remember R2 anyway by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Obi-Wan never had a particular love of technology anyway. So he would have little attachment to a droid that was not in fact even his own. Why then 20 years later would he even remember the model number of Anakins R2 unit? There's a lot of stuff that happened 20 years ago I can't remember without a lot of jogging.

    That's the explanation I favor, that a droid is just a droid to Obi-Wan and he simply doesn't remember nor does it matter.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  180. funny, just had that experience by dindi · · Score: 1

    my wife completely missed 4-5-6 .....
    so it was actually fun to watch the whole story one after each other.....

    also doing that, makes a lot different experience/perception of the last 3 episodes, that I saw 10+ times a piece

  181. Re:There are only two answers to that question. by vertinox · · Score: 2, Funny

    So, which do you prefer? :)

    A recent poll of humans found they gave either these two answers:

    1.) If I am in charge, then a dictatorship.

    2.) If not, then democracy is fine.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  182. Sta.. what? by luckinfoser · · Score: 1

    This is neither here nor there, but I found this chick on LJ, and I'd wax that ass at least 40 times a day if she was close and didn't have a boyfriend who might kick my ass. She tolerated Star Wars and has nice boobs. http://www.livejournal.com/users/starswillfollow/5 8845.html Check her out, seriously. http://www.livejournal.com/users/starswillfollow/5 5813.html

  183. Can't believe this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...fun to work through the ranks as an Empire pilot. Being indoctrinated, bringing peace, stability, and law-and-order to the galaxy.

    Are you a U.S. citizen ?

    1. Re:Can't believe this by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      "...fun to work through the ranks as an Empire pilot. Being indoctrinated, bringing peace, stability, and law-and-order to the galaxy."

      Are you a U.S. citizen ?


      Yes, but it was fun to view the world from the traditional European perspective of empire and order. It's so different from the US tradition of liberate, rebuild, pack up and go home. :-)

  184. Re:Different! by Moofie · · Score: 1

    Uh, thanks for that clarification. Ass.

    --
    Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  185. I concur. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stupid liberal! Alderaan had weapons of mass destruction; the Death Star, no, wait, Freedom Star, was protecting your precious, delicious civil liberties! Support our Stormtroopers! We can't let the Wookies use our own freedoms against us!

  186. Re:Different! by SPY_jmr1 · · Score: 1

    You're more then welcome, idiotic buffoon.

  187. seven year olds too smart for star wars by peter303 · · Score: 1

    You have to be a jaded adult to watch star wars. A seven year old will see all the inconsistencies.

  188. Re: I have a bad feeling about this by markhb · · Score: 1

    I think it showed up twice in EP 3: once when C-3P0 said it, and once (I think) when they left R2 alone in the hangar bay of Grievous' flagship... he whistled something, and I firmly believe that what was behind that whistle was the line in question.

    --
    Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
  189. Re: I have a bad feeling about this by fr2asbury · · Score: 1

    Actually Obiwan says it while they're flying their ships around in that first battle.
    It's very likley that 3P0 said it, but he's ALWAYS saying stuff like that. "We're Doomed!" etc.

    This is ridiculous. Slashdot is telling me it hasn't been two minutes since my last comment posting. Like that even has anything to do with anything. This is an entirely different topic.

  190. there was a master plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I remember seeing an interview with Lucas (I believe it was one of the pre-show interviews with Leonard Maltin on the THX-remastered VHSs) where he admitted that his original grand scheme was to write a 9-part epic where the only common characters were two robots. This lends support to that theory, not quite R2 as a demigod, but maybe more of a narrator. R2 is the one being to make it through the rise, the climax, and, presumably, the decline of the Empire with his life and memory intact. He's the only being qualified to give an eyewitness account.

  191. EU vs. US way to mess up things by mbaudis · · Score: 1

    the (current) European way is:

    - see horror, consider long (too long) in an open discussion, if to intervene, ask americans for help and let them bomb, clean up and pay for many years

    the current u.s. way is:

    - oligarchy decides about protecting their interests (politically and financially), president becomes "commander in chief", everybody starts to "support our troups", war is won, dying starts, at some point europeans/uno have to step in to clean up and pay for many years, even if not supporting the war...

    considering the current situation(s), i rather prefer the EU model... but then, i am an http://www.oldeuropean.net/.

    1. Re:EU vs. US way to mess up things by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      Regarding everybody starts to "support our troups" you are quite ignorant. The "Support our Troops" sentiment is part of the pro- and anti-war camps. It is born out of the disgraceful error we made during Vietnam in equating the men who fight wars with the men who start wars, blaming common soldiers for the war. Now both sides are trying to take care of the troops as best as possible while putting the heat where it belongs, on the politicians.

      Regarding war is won, dying starts, at some point europeans/uno have to step in to clean up and pay for many years, even if not supporting the war. Where is Europe stepping up and/or helping to cleanup a US effort? Except for the UK in general, and other countries helping with the invasion of Iraq, there has not been much beyond token efforts outside of Afghanistan. There the efforts are small but that is in line with their military capabilities.

  192. Re:Quick - what was your parents toaster 20 years by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    How many of you have heard of a "Z3?" If the VIN number happened to be 000000000000000001 don't you think that'd stick in your mind?

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  193. WWLD? (What Would Lucas Do?) by Specter · · Score: 1

    Do you have what it takes to be the writer/director of a major science fiction movie? Take this quiz to find out:

    1) During a breath-taking but pointless introductory space battle scene one of your film's protagonists' space ships is set upon by parasitic robots, do you:

    a. Have the character use his mysterious "force" to throw the boarders from his ship?

    b. Have the character's wing man, who also has mysterious "force" powers, throw the boarders from the ship?

    c. Have the character's wing man crash their ships together in order to smash those robots real good?

    2) Your film's protagonists have finally boarded the enemy space cruiser and are searching for a hostage to rescue. The cruiser is over-run with enemy battle robots (droids) with orders to shoot to kill. When your droids manage to completely surprise and "get the drop on" your protagonists do you:

    a. Allow the droids to use their superior electronic reflexes to fill the protagonists full of laser holes thereby aborting a bad movie before it really starts?

    b. Introduce a bit of "deus ex machine" and have the droids inexplicably reprogram themselves from shoot-on-sight mode to give-stupid-warning-and-then-stand-by-passively-an d-die mode?

    3) Your leading man returns home from a hard day fighting droids to learn that his secret wife is pregnant, do you:

    a. Use the opportunity to introduce conflict between the characters and present a weakness to the protagonist's foes thereby creating fertile ground for further character development?

    b. Pretty much ignore the pregnancy itself as a significant plot device with major ramifications for your characters and never revisit the topic again until it's time for the birth?

    4) You've managed to get one of your protagonists involved in a completely pointless sub-plot. After using the "force" to smash his opponents with some of the local scenery, the protagonist must fight the level "boss" who can simultaneously wield four deadly "light sabers." Do you have your protagonist:

    a. Use the "force" to rip the arms off the "boss" and cut the boss to ribbons with his own light sabers?

    b. Hold the "boss" in place with the "force" and use the "force" to pick up a near by space ship and smash the "boss" repeatedly with the improvised cudgel?

    c. Use the "force" to bounce the "boss" around like a high tech basketball until he comes apart at the seams?

    d. Use the "force" to rip the beating heart from the "boss" in a manner reminiscent of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom?

    e. Engage in a pointless light-saber duel that culminates in a fist fight and terminates with a simple shot from a blaster while totally ignoring the character's innate abilities.

    5) At some point in your film you need to turn your protagonist from good to evil. Coincidently, the wife of your protagonist very badly needs to die before the next film. Do you:

    a. Allow your ultimate bad guy to hatch an evil plot to kill the protagonist's wife and blame it on the "good guys" thereby simultaneously providing the perfect reason for the protagonist to turn on the "good guys" as well as necessarily eliminating a character to advance the plot.

    b. Allow the protagonist to fail while trying to do the right thing and use his failure to do good as the impetus to commit an evil murderous killing spree including hacking up a bunch of seemingly defenseless children and then just have the wife, a central character in this film and two previous films, simply decide to quit living in the last few minutes of the film?

    6) You've got a great segment of film that does a wonderful job of showcasing the wizardry of your computer animation department. Unfortunately it's also completely pointless and does nothing to adva

  194. Twist on that... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    On the other hand, how many people would have actually looked at the VIN on a toaster? :-)

    But Z3 sounds like it might indeed have been a memorable toaster.. Unless that was an analogy? I don't think R2 was the first, unlike C3-PO.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Twist on that... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Well the Z3 is a non-hovering landspeeder that won't be invented for quite some time.. and in another galaxy to boot; which is why it has a Vehicle Identification Number. so apparantly it wasn't a very good analogy... all of my posts have been pretty much car-related (the relative prevalence of droids seems to put them above "kitchen appliance" at least to a level of "major household appliance"

      There does seem to be a toaster droid in jabba's palace though.. it's getting its feet tortured. I guess it wasn't toasty enough.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!