Slashdot Mirror
Neal Stephenson on Star Wars in the NYT
SnapShot writes "Neal Stephenson has an editorial in the New York Times about the difference between the old Star Wars and the new Star Wars, and the difference between geeking out and vegging out. Oh, and computer scientists and engineers are the Jedi of the U.S." From the article: "Likewise, many have been underwhelmed by the performance of Hayden Christensen, who plays Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader. Only if you've seen the "Clone Wars" cartoons will you understand that Anakin is a seriously damaged veteran, a poster child for post-traumatic stress disorder. But since none of that background is actually supplied by the Episode III script, Mr. Christensen has been given an impossible acting task. He's trying to swim in air."
Scientists and technologists have the same uneasy status in our society as the Jedi in the Galactic Republic. They are scorned by the cultural left and the cultural right, and young people avoid science and math classes in hordes.
This quote from the article in particular resonated with me. We (scientists) have long been running an uneasy gauntlet between those that want us represent their theological, political or personal beliefs while trying to find truth where it is and for what it represents. Granted, these issues always arise within each one of us, but our training is to make hypothesis and then test them against what resources we can bring to bear. There are those that are not interested in truth and will twist facts and even scientists themselves to represent their perception or will which has always been part of the fascination I had with many of the original stories and sociological background behind the idea of the Jedi. (Disclaimer: The last Star Wars movie I thought was any good was "Empire Strikes Back").
The danger of course in not accepting rigorous scientific study of available facts leads us to confusion and obfuscation of truth which leads to jeopardy of person and country. Unfortunately, we have in the last few years gone quite far down this road through decisions made based upon data twisted to represent a prior beliefs rather than letting the data speak and then drawing conclusions from those data.
There has of course always been a fascination by many folks with power and "shiny things", but if we are to proceed beyond vanity and self obsessed cultivation of what others find attractive or desirable to find truth, we need to cultivate new generations of people interested in seeking the scientific and mathematical explanations of the universe.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
*sigh*
Maybe your friends think you're an idiot.
If you had read the crawler in the beginning of the movie, you would have read:
So, the enemy is Count Dooku. The ship is owned by the Separatists. The ship has the Chancellor on it. He was "kidnapped" by General Grievous. No viewing of the Clone Wars DVD was required to understand this.
This guy's point is that the old movies had "geek" sequences that told the story, but he claims the movies have no story, just "veg out" sequences. But he's wrong. Someone with at least rudimentary reading comprehension skills would have figured it out.
Maybe the fact that he saw Episodes IV-VI a million times is the reason why he understands the plot. Since he was seeing Episode III for the first time (and obviously not paying attention), that could be why he didn't understand. Has nothing to do with the quality of the movies.
As someone with an embarrassingly-encyclopedic knowledge of the movies*, I'd say Episodes I-III are as good as (and maybe better) than Episodes IV-VI.
This guy is in a long line of people who must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the new Star Wars movies are not as good as the original trilogy. (The rest of the line will be posting in this story about how George Lucas ruined their childhood, etc).
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
Oh cmon moderators, the parent is funny, Cause it's gonna be so important to stay serious on a topic like this. hmmmmm.
"you understand that Anakin is a seriously damaged veteran, a poster child for post-traumatic stress disorder. But since none of that background is actually supplied by the Episode III script, Mr. Christensen has been given an impossible acting task"
I work with "seriously damaged veterrans" every day, many of them the same age as Anakin is supposed to be. I can say with certainty, the background isn't required.
If he was damaged, it would be obvious in him like it is in most of my kids. But Christensen can't ACT. That's the bigger problem.
Gees! It must of killed him to be limited to so few words.
Perhaps this is just the first of a three part Editorial Cycle.
Actually, I'd like to see him do a regular column in a serious outlet (Washington Post or something). He's as articulate and encyclopedic (and more lyrical) in his own way George Will, and his take on things, given his sense of cultural history (seen through the lens of technology) is really interesting. Like, or not, some of his conclusions or predictions, you just can't stop reading anything he writes. I've never put down one of his chapters without doing more history and language homework in the following hour than I did during my entire stay in high school.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
In the 1970s/1980s, there was nothing else like Star Wars. It was like nothing that had come before. No previous movie had such effects. No other movie had been so successful, had been such a phenomenon. No other movie had so much merchandise or spawned so many cool toys. Movies that grossed a hundred million dollars did not come out every day. (By the way, I keep seeing comments in Slashdot that say "If those movies defined your childhood, you're a LOSER!" but they don't understand--I started kindergarten in 1977 and finished sixth grade in 1984. The Star Wars movies were released from 1977 to 1983. *Everyone* like Star Wars. It was always there. Everyone had the costumes and action figures. It didn't define my childhood, but it was a big part of it, and I've got a lot of happy memories playing with Star Wars toys, alone and with friends.)
Fast-forward a couple decades. We're totally saturated in big movies. We have several hundred-million-dollar-plus movies every summer and a never-ending series of fast-food tie-ins. George has shown us the way and *everything* is merchandised to the hilt. The world that the new Star Wars movies play in is very different from the world that the first movies played it. It's *not* just that we're all 20 years older now.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Boy, does he take a turn into left field at the end there.
You know, I went to a pretty good school (Georgia Tech) and studied first engineering and then atmospheric science. There were people lining up to take science, engineering, and math classes... so much so that if you registered late, good luck getting into your required courses that semester.
Going back to high school, I checked my yearbook and about 40% of the students were going to college to study science of engineering. (I found it more interesting that 10% were going into law enforcement... but I digress.)
Why do people keep saying that "boys and girls run away from science and math?" I just don't see it. Kids younger than 12 are all about science, and based on my graduating class quite a few end up there at the end of high school. Sure, kids check out when they are teenagers, but who the hell doesn't? My personal opinion is that if you never skipped a class in high school, your priorities were a bit out of whack.
Is there any factual basis for Mr. Stephenson's claim? Or is the constant harping about "the young generation avoiding math" just more baby boomer bitching?
The cartoons were very cool, but why GL would create a script that sort of needs the viewer to have seen them beforehand (and most movie-goers haven't) is kind of silly.
To make people rush out and buy the cartoons, of course. The added profits from the shorts of the DVDs will be truly impressive.
In the original trilogy, people were so happy there was a Star Wars that they were happy to overlook any and all flaws in the dialogue, storyline, plot elemenets, etc. They didn't mind that the Ewoks could defeat an elite stormtrooper legion, that an enormous Imperial fleet could simply go missing at the ROTJ, that Luke could become a full Jedi Knight in just a few years time. They didn't mind any of it, because the 70s and 80s were the time of action movies where Charles Bronson and Clint Eastwood were major stars, followed by the Governator, Van Damme, etc. And all they had to do was either shoot people or beat the shit out of them. Rambo, Dirty Harry, Rocky, the Terminator, take your pick. But times changed in the 90s. Moviegoers became a lot more critical, demanded more from filmmakers. Particularly once the internet came to be widely used, everybody and their brother became armchair film critics. Everybody suddenly was an expert on filmmaking, writing, acting, producing (especially Slashdotters)though most had no clue what it all entailed. Movie audiences steadily got spoiled over time by some truly great epics until finally, these days, very few if any movies are good enough anymore. Thus the complaints about the plot holes in the Prequels, questions regarding the acting, the dialogue, etc. All things that could have come up while critiquing the OT, but which didn't for one reason. Because once upon a time, people went to a movie and simply enjoyed it for what it was. They didn't spend the entire time ripping it to pieces and then running home to post on their lame websites every flaw that they perceived and how they themselves could have done it better people. Think about people. You're spoiled to the point where you are unlikely to ever enjoy many movies in the future. Any movie you can think of, I can find someone on the internet who will be happy to rip it to shreds. Because it deserves it? No, because people just like to bitch and whine. It doesn't matter what the topic is, and it's what keeps internet forum from becoming totally deserted.
In the old ones, it was a story of Good versus Evil. We were following Young Skywalker is his understanding that the world that surrounds him will be consumed by evil if he doesn't do something to sop it. There's even great punches (ex: Leia and Luke ARE BROTHERS AND SISTERS!) It was a great story.
The new ones, well.. they change the focus. Its about power. Its about corruption. Its about the difference in democracy (the republic) and the empire. How can good visions become evil. And also, it spoils any punch that could exist in the old movies. How could you watch the 6 movies from beginning to start? There would be no "I'm your father" punch? How could there be a "You have a sister" punch? What about the focus? I think anybody not knowing about star wars and watching the whole thing from start to the end would be utterly confused and think its just badly made.
I wouldn't mind you in my head, if you weren't so clearly mad -Lews Therin Telamon
One of my gripes with the new vs the old is with the treatment of the Jedi.
In the original trilogy, the Jedi didn't really do much fighting. Yoda even tells Luke in Empire "the force is to be used for knowledge and defence, never for attack." When the Falcon gets pulled into the Death Star, Obiwan doesn't come out swinging, he sneaks around to free the ship. The part that gets me most is when Luke is fighting Vader in Jedi. When does Luke declare himself to be a Jedi? When he throws his weapon away. He STOPS FIGHTING. That was when he claimed is rightful status.
To watch the new movies, you get more of a sense of "Jedi can kill anyone they want! Jedi cut off
heads ALL the time and don't even think twice about it. These guys are so crazy and awesome
that they flip out ALL the time. I heard that there was this Jedi who was eating at Mos Eisly Cantina. And when some dude dropped a spoon the Jedi killed the whole town. My friend Mark said that he saw a Jedi totally uppercut some kid just because the kid opened a window."
It just doesn't mesh with:
There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no death, there is the Force.
I know it's not canon, but it clearly illustrates to me the Yin/Yang qualities that balance the light and dark sides of the force.
While watching the new movies, it was like a stone in my shoe that kept bothering me. I kept thinking "but a Jedi wouldn't act that way.
I know this may be more of a personal interpretation, but I think the original trilogy mesh with my view.
"...At the end of the day"..."when everyone goes home, you're stuck with yourself." RIP Layne Staley
Actually they did. The acting was pretty bad, especially Hammil, who was almost as wimpy and whiney as Christensen was. The difference between Eps 4-6 and 1-3 is that 4-6 were made to be a fun set of movies, but 1-3 were made to be blockbusters. Lucas set out to make world changing movies with terrible material and competing with movies which were fun to watch because they didn't take themselves seriously.
Also they tried to explain everything which before where just accepted (ie what makes a Jedi able to use the force) and added to a mystery that your imagination could fill in.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
The really sad thing is, judging from some of the current headlines, the field of science is next.
Breakfast served all day!
That at least explains the incoherent plot and the lack of character development.
But that's not the worst part.
Darth Vader. DARTH fucking VADER!!! The most evil badass in the fucking galaxy, second only to the emperor but that guy's getting kinda long in the tooth.
I mean, I went to the Hard Rock Cafe in Chicago, and they have the Darth Vader suit behind glass, and it just seemed to exude evil. Gave me chills. This is one scary badass genocidal black-hearted motherfucker.
So, how did he become such a villain? What drove him to this abyss of the soul?
He wanted to save his sweetie.
WHAT????
He didn't really want to join the dark side, but he had to do it to save someone else? So really, it was self-sacrifice! It was an act of GOOD! He's a misunderstood good guy!
And why did he feel this step was necessary? Because (1) he had a dream she was gonna die, and (2) the chancellor tells him a story about one old Sith who supposedly could save people from dying. Does it ever occur to Anakin, when he finds out the chancellor is an evil sith lord, that maybe he shouldn't believe the evil Sith's little fairy tale? No! He becomes Vader because he's the most gullible Jedi in the fucking universe!
And then, the final moment. The helmet goes on. Darth Vader at last steps fully into his dark destiny. And what are the first words out of his mouth? "Where's Padme? Is she ok?"
This is evil???
And then, the horrible moment...when he throws back his head, throws up his arms, and screams "NOOOOOO" right out of a hundred other B-grade schlocky movies.
God. What horror. All I can do is tell myself, this isn't the real story. The real story of Vader is still untold. This is just the distorted vision of a senile old man.
And of course, there are a hundred other points you could pick apart. Even the fight scenes sucked. Phantom Menace wasn't a great movie, but the lightsaber fights with Darth Maul, those were cool. These were just flash flash flash, you couldn't even tell what was going on. And Padme, used to be a strong character, now she spends the whole movie snivelling.
And in all three movies...it used to be good vs. evil. Now, the essence of a Jedi is "no attachments." Anakin can't be a Jedi and fall in love. The power to heal is only on the Dark Side, the good Jedi just accept death and let people die. Ten years go by after taking Anakin away from Tatooine, and the great Jedi and the Queen never bother to buy their golden boy's mother out of slavery. Being a Jedi means not giving a shit about anybody.
When we watched the old movies, every kid, at least every boy, wanted to be either Han Solo, or a Jedi. These movies have no Han Solo-type character, and the Jedi are assholes. Gaagh, what a waste. These are not Star Wars. Star Wars had character. Where's amnesia when you need it.
This is quite possibly the best Star Wars comment on Slashdot, ever.
One thing a lot of people here don't realize, is the immense age range on this site. We all assume everyone else is within a few years of age from us, and this comes up time and again: "my first computer was a 486" "I used punch cards, newb!" etc.
Us 80s kids (those that actually grew up in the 80s, not those born in them) are a very odd breed. We bridged the cultural gap between Leave it to Beaver and American Idol. Between transistor radios and mp3 players. Between pocket calculators and the latest G5s. Between Bugs Bunny and Pokemon.
Think about it: before Star Wars, mass merchandising almost didn't exist. Within 5 years of Star Wars, the movie industry changed entirely. Box office revenues became such a small portion of income as to be almost meaningless for many films. Saturday morning cartoons became an entirely different breed one the merchandise tie-ins became the important factor. We went from computers being these huge things you might have seen on television (back when there were 5 channels if you were lucky), to having one in your pocket that can SHOW television, all 300 channels of it.
When I was very young, the world was as my parents saw it. Pop culture came through the radio (been around for decades), television (a few channels, hasn't changed much other than the introduction of colour a while back - and most people only owned one), movies (theatres only, so you're only ever going to see a movie once or twice in your life) or newspapers. During my childhood nearly all of what we have today developed - the Internet, VCRs/DVDs, Cassettes/CDs, the 300 channel universe...
The world changed profoundly during the 80s. Those of you who were already adults just adapted, and in many cases, stayed away from the changes. Those of you too young to remember, well, you think the world has always been this way. There's a fairly small subset of society that's shared both experiences: the time from about 1945-1977, and today. Not just shared it, LIVED it. I cannot for the life of me explain to my parents just why a home computer is so cool. They'll simply never get it. And most kids these days just expect it. The magic is lost on them.
Insert Star Wars into my rant, and maybe you'll understand just why it's considered such a huge part of my generation's lives. What Star Wars did to the movie/toy industry is what we saw EVERY DAY while growing up.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Yeah, but Lucas fell prey to what a lot of people who've written stuff do.
In 2-3 of my short story classes in college, we would write a short story, turn it in unnamed and the class would discuss the story. We, as the author were not to speak at all during the discussion of our writing. So, you got to sit back and watch a group of 15 or so people discuss something you'd written.
It was amazing the crap people thought you'd "meant" to include. At the same time, a lot of neat insights came out. However, the vast majority of the importance attributed to "themes", story arcs, etc. was complete bull. Several of us discussed this outside class. Most of my stories were just me following the characters through the interesting things that sort of just appeared. It was a common enough theme to be apparent that the vast majority of us were doing something similar.
How does this relate? There were a couple of people in these classes that started buying into their own "hype". They started actually trying to claim that they'd intentionally put that stuff in there. I think Lucas has done the same thing. He's had 30 years of people analyzing Star Wars and giving all kinds of insights and he's noticed how deep and complex those insights can be and started passing them off as though he came up with them and intended them from the beginning.
Unfortunately, not all of the insights and "plans" can all be true simultaneously, so he's been walking a tightwire all along.
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
Also they tried to explain everything which before where just accepted. . .
.44 casing in a story that requires it to have been fired by a .38 is not. Magic need only be shown to be obeying the "laws" of magic. Reality needs to be shown to be obeying the laws of reality.
Groundhog Day is a great fucking movie. It is a great fucking movie for one primary reason:
They never once, not even to the teeny, tiniest degree, tried to "explain" what was going on. They simply told the story. What happened.
I wish more writers would grasp the essential idea that a story is simply what happens.
Cinderella works, and has continued to work for over a thousand years, not because the paranormal events are well explained, but because they are not "explained" at all. It's magic. Everybody knows that.
The second you try to invoke biological or "quantum flux" into the deal to give a plausable reason for the mice turning into horses you're just going to create an audience that sits there saying "Like, dude, that's completely retarded."
We can accept magic in a story, even if we know there is no such thing, and enjoy it immensely, because magic is, up front and by definition, not subject to the rules of reason or physics and we have suspended our disbelief in such from the outset in order to enjoy the tale.
Any attempt to impose rational explanation on magic simply ruins the exeperinece of the tale by creating obvious falsehood and makes it clear that the story teller is a hack who doesn't know his own business.
Magic wands are perfectly "believable." Showing a
Mixing the two up inappropriately innately creates an unbelievable mess.
KFG
One thing that's always irked me about the prequels that I've only recently put my finger on is the gratuitous use of lightsabers compared to what we saw in 4-6.
In Ep 4, lightsabers were shown quite sparingly:
Luke in Obi-Wan's house
Obi Wan in the Cantina
Luke practicing on the M.Falcon
Obi-Wan vs Vader
In the scene when Obi-Wan gives Anakin's lightsaber to Luke, he makes a point of telling Luke that it's a warrior's weapon that represents honour and grace. You would not expect a samurai to use his sword to cut sandwiches; merely drawing your weapon is a significant act in itself. Contrast with episode 1 when in the opening scene, all it took for Obi-Wan and Anakin to whip 'em out was a loud noise.
Of course, in 1977, the technology level wasnt there, so every second of lightsabre screen time cost a lot more than now when CGI is just a commodity, which probably explains it's scarcity in eps 4-6. However, Lucas' often gratuitous use of lightsabre battles in the prequels totally smacks of fan service. IMHO it really dilutes the mystique and significance of the lightsaber and makes the jedi look like gang members who think running around with dual beretta's held sideways is cool. Nothing at all like the introspective and disciplined order the jedi are supposed to represent.
The problem with religion, as I see it, is that
1) there are more than one, each with different ideas about morality, religious figures, afterlife, etc. (despite similarities)
2) people incorporate religious ideas into their worldview and cling to them
3) a person's worldview is ridiculously difficult to change, for some unknown human reason, and people will sometimes fight to the death to protect it
There's just way too much action based on ignorance/lack of real communication/fear of the unknown in this world. I mean, OK, what if the particular miracle-performing prophet you've been indoctrinated to worship your whole life, wasn't the ONLY prophet? Would it be so bad? Would the sky fall? Is it possible that the founders of a new religion, perhaps even yours, had just a bit of self-interest going on? Is it possible that human interests over the years have distorted the original message of some of these prophets (especially the religions that are much older than Gutenberg's invention)? Why is it always that members of the OTHER religion are going to hell, or are the infidels, or what have you? Why must people constantly insist on thinking of everything using an "us vs. them" paradigm?
Is the practice of brainwashing a human from birth with just 1 holy book (whether it's the bible, the koran, the torah, or whatever), as opposed to educating children about ALL religions, really going to help us communicate our religious needs/feelings, as a people? Are we that afraid that someone, perhaps even one of our very children, is going to like "their" religion more? And would that be so terrible?
(A good friend of mine's family practically disowned his sister because she converted to orthodox judaism. I say, let it be.)
Open your minds and stop the fighting, folks.
Disclaimer: While raised Catholic (I was even an altar boy, once), I took a few religious studies electives in college and they were VERY eye-opening. To the point where I felt angry for having been kept in a "catholic bubble" for the first half of my existence. While I am not strict any more, I feel in my gut that there is some kind of spirituality to life as we know it.)
The events in Aarne Thompson tale 510A were "caused" by (insert supernatural agent here).
What the poster above failed to grasp is that the supernatural "McGuffin" (or MacGuffin for traditionalists) doesn't matter. Magical fish (the agent in the earliest known version of the tale), Ghost, Fairy Godmother, Wizard, Invisible little fuzzy pink unicorn with a magic horn, they all simply translate into "it were done by magic."
My original post relates to trying to explain magical events as nonmagical. Claiming a supernatural event as an explanation of a supernatural event begs the question.
Science fiction is writing on the razor's edge. One false move and you lose the balance of the story; and it dies. The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on. Death is final even for a story. If you lose your reader in chapter 2 it doesn't matter if you write a "retrieval" in chapter 4, because the reader didn't believe a single damn word of chapter 3. (Yes, there are rare masters who can write books that can only be understood on the second reading, but such are rare, and they are truely masters if they can get you to that second reading in the first place. They created a degree of skepticism in the reader without truely killing the story. It was just mostly dead. Mostly dead you can work with. If you're a master).
Where most science fiction writers lose their balance is in trying to explain the technology at the level of the characters, when what they need to do is explain the technology at the level of the reader.
If, to the reader, the technology is indistinguishable from magic, write as if it were magic, because it is.
This is specifically where Lucas lost his balance and his story died.
KFG
Man can believe the impossible, but can never believe the improbable. - Oscar Wilde
.
I truely hate to critise Mr. Wilde, as his genius often relied on chosing exactly the right word at exactly the right time, but. .
As my own example of the shell casings illustrates there is a good deal more subtlty to it than that. Man can believe the impossible, but it has to be exactly the right kind of believable impossibility.
I believe the word that Mr. Wilde was looking for was not "improbable," but rather "implausible," especially as his greatest art relied on making the entirely improbable plausible.
But then perhaps he got it right after all, as his was the sort of genius that proves the rule.
Come to think of it, knowing Mr. Wilde only through his writings, it's just possible, although perhaps improbable, that he was having a bit of a joke by subtly pointing that out.
KFG
Likewise, Clinton was the last great conservative president.
A balanced budget. Reduced overall government spending by every metric: in real dollars and as a fraction of GDP. Pro-business environment and economic growth. Worldwide free-trade agreements. The list goes on.
I think part of the reason Clinton is so deeply vilified by the right is that he actually DID for the economy and for economic policy what so many republicans have only PROMISED for so long. That makes him a threat to the myth of "The GOP is the party of financial responsibility". Well, okay, dubya has buried that myth a good bit deeper, now.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
Seriously, it has to be Lucas' atrociously bad character directing.
Because there are other people in the film, like Ewan McGregor and Samuel L. Jackson, who are fine actors elsewhere and squeeze out the most wooden performances of their life in SWIII.
Look at Obi-Wan when he's "bowing out of the political moment" and talking to Anakin after the crash at the beginning of the movie. Pay attention to the ridiculous, unnatural arm gestures he's making - then try to find McGregor body-acting that badly in any other movie. Or watch Mace Windu's overacted nod in response to Yoda's "a prophecy which misread, might have been" or listen to the lines opposite Palpatine: "He controls the courts! He is too dangerous to leave alive! I am over-acting!"
Those moments are so wooden and overacted - by actors I KNOW are better than that - that I can practically see Lucas on the edge of the set when they filmed them. Jackson gives a nice, subtle, natural nod of agreement to yoda's line and Lucas says "No, Sam, we really need to see that you agree with Yoda. Make that head-bob a bit more forceful."
Everywhere you look, you see the hand of a director who doesn't understand subtlety, natural movement, or natural tone of voice. He's always urging the actors to ham it up a bit more, unaware of what a hash he's making of the character moments. It's the same kind of Aspergers' syndrome personality that can write lines like "hold me the way you did on Naboo, back before the war, when it was just us" and think it's a natural romantic moment.
Lucas simply doesn't "get" natural human emotion and interaction.
Which is too bad, really, because he writes a pretty damn entertaining story and can visualize vast action sequences like nobody else.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.